The Seattle Times has officially endorsed Kerry for President.
Four years ago, this page endorsed George W. Bush for president. We cannot do so again — because of an ill-conceived war and its aftermath, undisciplined spending, a shrinkage of constitutional rights and an intrusive social agenda.
The Bush presidency is not what we had in mind. Our endorsement of John Kerry is not without reservations, but he is head and shoulders above the incumbent.
<
p>iTunes: “You’re So Physical (Live)” by Nine Inch Nails from the album Solid Gold Hell (1991, 4:58).
CJ
Brandon
Tim Who?
ندى
8 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
I’m a stupid European but shouldn’t newspapers and other press be impartial? If a Belgian newspaper even hints at a preference for a certain political party this small country burst out in outrage…
We even got a newspaper here that has “The Independent newspaper” in it’s header right above its name… Just to illustrate how important neutrality is to us.
Not that I don’t like the fact that it’s not Bush but still…
It’s on the editorial page. People can say whatever they like there. You most likely wouldn’t see that in a 144 point headline on the front page.
why in hell would a seattle newspaper EVER have endorsed bush in the first place???
on tom’s comment above, i believe news media are starting to realize that its damn near impossible to be truly impartial. they should still represent the facts clearly, but it’s better if you reveal your biases and thus let the reader decide for themselves what they think on the issue.
if you think about it, an ‘impartial’ news media helps to foster stupidity, at least here in america. people in this country are so busy with other things that they simply absorb news and because it’s ‘impartial’ or ‘objective’ take it as fact. this becomes a problem when someone like Fox news comes into the picture and starts feeding their version of ‘fair and balanced’ to the people who watch them. people accept fox’s slanted reporting as fact, though it’s hard to give it that label.
i think this is why blogs are doing so well against the media. people become familiar with blog writers (reporters) and thus know their biases and slants. good bloggers still report all the facts but also give their own personal interpretation - without the guise of ‘impartiality’. an even better blogger makes room in their forums for other opinions. they essentially say, ‘this is what i think. what do you think?’ thus encouraging participation in the world around you instead of just nodding like an idiot at whatever the talking heads tell you.
just a thought. a newspaper’s endorsement encourages people to agree or disagree, it encourages people to get involved in the process. or at least i think so.
In theory, yes. In reality, everyone is biased, and as Kirsten pointed out in her comment, it’s becoming more and more obvious to everyone that as much as the media like to claim that it’s practicing unbiased reporting, that just isn’t the case. Admittedly, it’s rare to find an unbiased weblogger, but generally, at least we admit our biases — heck, most of us display them rather obviously, so everyone knows where we’re coming from.
Also, as AxsDeny said, the editorial page is one place where American newspapers traditionally are able to drop the “unbiased” label and present the actual opinion of the paper’s editorial board. While most of the year they’ll focus on issues specific to the community, weighing in on national issues isn’t at all uncommon, and political endorsements by a popular newspaper can be a major boost to a candidate.
Eeeh…it’s the Times. (shrugs) You might remember that back in the dark ages, Anchorage had two newspapers, the Daily News and the Times. The Daily News always leaned more liberal, and the Times leaned more conservative. It’s much the same situation here — we’ve got the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (more liberal) and the Seattle Times (more conservative).
(nods in agreement)
I certainly hope so, at the very least. My big worry this year is the usual voter apathy — historically, the Right always seems to be far better at firing people up and getting them motivated and out to the polls. This year, we really need the Left to do that, and get off their lazy butts and vote. Any little thing that might help that happen is a good thing.
Off-Topic: AxsDeny (aks-ESS dee-NIGH). I couldn’t let it (“Denny”) go… sorry.
(laughs) Sorry ‘bout that — I’ve fixed my comment. Gee, you’d think that keeping a weblog would require the ability to actually read, wouldn’t you?
oh come on michael, you know the majority of the population finds reading highly underrated anyway.
you don’t want to be an outcast, do you?
Ok, if it was an editorial I can understand it.
I understand Kirstin’s point, but it does make me feel uncomfortable. If every news outlet is biased (even if they are publicly admitting it) how do you know that the stories that are being reported aren’t filtered?
Take Iraq for example. In Europe we had independent reporters entering the country without military escorts days after the invasion began. Staying in villages talking to the people who the war was happening to. Giving a unique and total view of what was going on. CNN and NBC were doing what now is called “embedded journalism” and cruising in military vehicles and living among the American and British soldiers. As I have all the respect for the unique view this can give about military life… I doubt if it can result in a global image of what is going on. Add this to a nation who’s patriotic feelings don’t need much to get burning bright, it isn’t such a big surprise to see it take more then a year before enough people start asking questions about their military presence abroad.
Nobody is perfect, but we should all try to better ourselves. Everyone is biased to some extend but in my mind a journalist should try to report the news as objectively as possible and let the reader draw his own conclusion. Especially in political matters… Anyway that’s the media I would choice to read.
I do agree that blogging offers different views. Views you either agree with or disagree with it, adding to a balanced opinion, creating debate. But consider the author and the target audience. A blog owner will be someone with a clear opinion or at least a strong need to express his view. A blog reader will be someone who likes to be informed and who want to take part in a public debate. An audience much different then the classic couch potato in front of the 8 o’clock news. An audience who also will be more armed against a formed opinion.
My first post probably was to black and white… I do prefer objectivity… but that’s just me
…. I’ll shut up now… 