Anonymous wrote:Who cares what a newspaper's political position is? Many readers just want facts and not opinions so they can draw their own conclusions instead of being told what to think. Why would some newspaper's endorsement carry more weight than a reader's own judgment? Endorsements by anyone imply that other people are incapable of making decisions without being told what to do, and that the endorser's opinion somehow has greater value and merit.
Anonymous wrote:Who cares what a newspaper's political position is? Many readers just want facts and not opinions so they can draw their own conclusions instead of being told what to think. Why would some newspaper's endorsement carry more weight than a reader's own judgment? Endorsements by anyone imply that other people are incapable of making decisions without being told what to do, and that the endorser's opinion somehow has greater value and merit.
Anonymous wrote:If it was truly an arms' length decision about getting out of the business of providing endorsements, then the LA Times and WaPo would've announced it earlier this year.
But to do it at the last minute in a neck-and-neck race for POTUS?
The owners of these papers are scared of their own shadow. This wasn't an independent decision.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:WAPO can read the polls. They know Harris is a loser.
I don’t blame them at all.
Funny how the polls don't say that, MAGA.
Anonymous wrote:LOL. Jeff Bezos knows Donald is winning and he has real businesses to protect.
Anonymous wrote: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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:WAPO can read the polls. They know Harris is a loser.
I don’t blame them at all.
Funny how the polls don't say that, MAGA.