Anonymous wrote:WAPO can read the polls. They know Harris is a loser.

I don’t blame them at all.

Wow, that is really pathetic.

Anonymous wrote:What difference does an endorsement make?

Example: FOX News openly fawned all over Trump, kissed ass relentlessly and refused to report on anything derogatory about him. So what would the point of them endorsing Trump be?

It makes a difference because it speaks to the impartiality of the editorial board. They can endorse Trump for all I care - but they have to publicly justify it. But when editorial boards are no longer independent of management....well, it bleeds into all decisions on the news desk.

These incidents prove that the owners are scared sh#tless of someone. And it's not Harris.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a healthy step for our democracy. Newspapers shouldn’t be in the endorsement business. Very hard to speak truth to power while simultaneously kissing up to power.

You think eliminating endorsements will change that? You sweet summer child. How do you think reporters get scoops? Tons of ass-kissing (figuratively and literally *ahem*Nuzzi*ahem*).

Non-endorsement will at least remove one high profile apparent violation of objectivity. Much more left to do to fix the fourth estate. Like I said, this is a healthy step. Not an end-point. Maybe I’m not as cynical as you are, but I believe we can build back our fourth estate and make it better!

WAPO can read the polls. They know Harris is a loser.

I don’t blame them at all.

The LA Times and WaPo are now suddenly afraid of the big bad orange wolf???

Hilarious!!!

Anonymous wrote:This is a healthy step for our democracy. Newspapers shouldn’t be in the endorsement business. Very hard to speak truth to power while simultaneously kissing up to power.

I agree. I am going to consider buying paper for first time in years. I want independent voices back!! Bravo!!!

Remember, Nixon personally threatened to financially ruin the WaPo if they published their Watergate story.

Sound familiar?

Anonymous wrote:Washington Post then: Katherine Graham wasn't afraid of Richard Nixon.

Washington Post now: Jeff Bezos is afraid of Donald Trump.

True

What difference does an endorsement make?

Example: FOX News openly fawned all over Trump, kissed ass relentlessly and refused to report on anything derogatory about him. So what would the point of them endorsing Trump be?

Washington Post then: Katherine Graham wasn't afraid of Richard Nixon.

Washington Post now: Jeff Bezos is afraid of Donald Trump.

Anonymous wrote:This is a healthy step for our democracy. Newspapers shouldn’t be in the endorsement business. Very hard to speak truth to power while simultaneously kissing up to power.

You think eliminating endorsements will change that? You sweet summer child. How do you think reporters get scoops? Tons of ass-kissing (figuratively and literally *ahem*Nuzzi*ahem*).

The Washington Post editorial board can't differentiate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump? I'm an idiot soccer mom and I can do it. Come on Washington Post. You can do better.

This is a healthy step for our democracy. Newspapers shouldn’t be in the endorsement business. Very hard to speak truth to power while simultaneously kissing up to power.

Huge news, just after LA Times not endorsing anyone. Both decisions were made by the paper's owners.

I think this speaks more to the fact that the owners are scared of Trump's retribution if he wins. Better to keep your head down and be quiet.