User 85168
Banned
This is their editorial board. Different than news reporters.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The New York Times endorses Hillary Clinton for President
- Thread starter RPGCrazied
- Start date
- Status
This is their editorial board. Different than news reporters.
"she's this great candidate are at best hypocrites blinding themselves to the truth"
What truth? She's the most qualified person to be president in a long time. Yes she has high unfavorables I'll grant you. But if you think I'm a hypocrite for not believing she's some horrible person I guess we'll never agree.
Hillary is not perfect but she doesn't deserve the scorn thrown her way.
MetroidPrimeRib
Banned
This is true.
Counterpoint:
Also: I'm slightly disturbed at the idea that the election of ANY government let alone America's can be summed up through the use of 30 rock gifs/memes and pictures.
I don't know if that's brilliant, bad or both.
Because I'm looking through Google and I'm starting to see alot of parallels and it's scaring the shit outta me (in both good and bad ways).
Yes, I also base all my political views on .gifs of pop culture series
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Confused, if a Trump presidency would be "incalculably worse", why wouldn't you do your bit to see that he didn't get in?
Otakumegane
Member
Yup.
NYT needs to be the 3rd person info-driver but now they've given even more excuse to Trump Supporters declaring that the media is under control or some bs like that.
Roger Dodger
Banned
I could've sworn it was choosing the lesser evil. It feels like we've just been choosing the the least broken part in terms of our presidency when the whole need process to be repaired.
I mean I don't know if you think about this but Trump is BASICALLY a civilian and the fact that it has gotten THIS FAR.
Like he made people who made it their lives to be in politics look like....us ? It is both amazing and truly horrifying because it shows the gap between us (civilians) and politicians.
There are people in the world (especially this country) who think, talk, and act like Trump on some level and they could handle it. He broke them in ways I've never seen before.
It would be amazing if it wasn't coming from such a worrisome place. In this situation, is a silver lining and I think SOMEHOW that's it.
The Trump...."nomination" has highlighted a fundamental flaw with all of these politicians.
If you can't come down to people and interact with them as such, how and why should you be expected to lead them ?
Mind you, I'm aware Trump is horrible (in many ways) but he's bringing in actual change....think about that. THIS GUY represents change in the WORST WAYS AND BEST WAYS IMAGINABLE.
and he's gonna win because of it, oh god. This maybe the most backwards american thing I've ever witnessed. Seriously, I'd be more impressed if it wasn't coming from someone's whose depravity is that of a well.
WarioFan63
Member
John Ratzenberger??? I didn't think he was this kind of person....
Roger Dodger
Banned
Ummm....No ? Not what's happening. I don't think I need to say that right ? Please god tell me I don't need to say that. (I really don't feel like fighting with ANYONE)
Please. I was just saying. I come in peace. Please, please no. Lol.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Just about every major newspaper endorses a candidate.
This is true.
Counterpoint:
Also: I'm slightly disturbed at the idea that the election of ANY government let alone America's can be summed up through the use of 30 rock gifs/memes and pictures.
I don't know if that's brilliant, bad or both.
Because I'm looking through Google and I'm starting to see alot of parallels and it's scaring the shit outta me (in both good and bad ways).
You think that's something. You should watch Parks and Rec. The show is about Hillary living in a town of Trump supporters.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
They are the face of the paper and decide what news are run. It's a bad look for all intents and purposes.
Look, citing transparency is besides the point. Just like it would be if you were transparent about any other form of misuse or potential of conflict. The problem is not that they are transparent about it, it's that they've seemingly thrown the cat in the barrel in terms of trying to be a objective outlet. As another poster said, this gives credence for Trump supporters to dismiss it in its entirety.
Maybe the right-wing outlets are biased against them, but you sure as hell can count on NYT, and that is a shame because there is some good reporting going on and they are a legendary paper. The arguments are good, but news reporting is about presenting facts not trying to sway opinion in accordance with the editors.
Remember the case of Haim Saban- One of Clintons top backers who tried to become the chief of the editorial board of several larger papers who he felt ran to many pro-Palestine stories? - That's an example of how dangerous it can be when people with a obvious political agenda tries to use the paper as a conduit for their opinions.
It's a slippery-slope I'm sure, but am I crazy to have this fear, or am I already caught in the fallacy?
To me it just seems like playing fire. How do you make sure that the editorial board who decides which news are supposed to circulate always pick the right side. In the case of Trump it's not difficult- But what when it is a less clear what the wrong or right choice is? You're risking the editorial board setting the agenda. The way they represent the facts is hugely influential as to how they are going to be perceived, right?
I laughed
"Political Cesspool"? xD
Roger Dodger
Banned
You're right. It just sucks that they both suck and there is nothing we can do. We do have other choices but, I don't think enough people are aware to make those other options viable.
When it comes to presidencies, I don't believe there should be a measuring stick on terrible and both candidates represent a spectrum of terrible where I just think the stakes are just too high to ignore them or think less of them.
FunkyMunkey
Banned
Let's stop pretending. Let's stop doing the lesser of two evils.
There is no lesser evil. Stop lying to yourself. Just let it wash over you, or as Liz Lemon would say when describing an ex-boyfriend of her's..
Yeah, like that. The election is an allegory for Dennis from 30 Rock.
woah so much edgyness. you are mr ice cool for sure. your post making me want to warm up some pizza pockets throw on linkin park and yell at my mom brb
ClayKavalier
Banned
Sanders seemed to be much more likable and authentic and down-to-earth and still lost the nomination to Clinton. There's more to Trump than just being an "outsider." If Ted Cruz or whoever was enough of a piece of shit to say the stuff Trump does about immigrants and boldly lie the way he does they'd be just as popular.
I mean Cruz comes across as way more slimy and detached than Clinton does and he was the GOP's runner-up. People who like Trump like to bring up that he's an outsider, but honestly I think most of the time it's because they'd rather not be honest about what they really like about him.
Every newspaper in the US has endorsed a presidential candidate. It's standard. Is this your first election?
Roger Dodger
Banned
That show is incredibly underrated.
Aaronology
Member
1. Politicians are by definition civilians.
2. Why, exactly, do you believe Trump is ushering in "change" and what sort of change do you think that would entail in any case?
I'd prefer it if news outlets at least pretended that they were neutral, there are already a shit load of places I can go if I want biased news articles. And it's not like it's hard to paint people like Trump in a negative light without being biased, you just have to write articles about the things he says and does.
Vigilant Walrus
Member
I thought they were Public Servants? Isn't there things that apply to them but not to regular civilians(In America)?
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Roger Dodger, as coherently and specifically as you can, what would you like this election? You get to have any policy and any change you want.
I'm surprised to see so many people unaware that newspapers' editorial boards endorse candidates, and then that so many think it's a bad idea. Newspapers publish opinion pieces all that time. I personally like seeing someone other than a campaign surrogate, politician, or celebrity voice an opinion about politics.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Just about every single newspaper endorses a candidate. Always have.
I'm surprised there was more than one of this take in this thread. I thought this was common knowledge.
I think that's what NYT has been doing and will continue to do.
Why do people think that this is supposed to be an admission that they'll print unsubstantiated claims in the future?
CoffeeJanitor
Member
Agreed
For the younger voters in here, this happens every election at media organizations. Nothing odd about it.
hammysaurusrex
Member
I'm struggling to understand the rationale that editorial boards should not publish editorials.
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
Shocking development
entremet
Member
Well we had people criticizing them for covering Hillary's email issues lol.
I know that newspapers published opinion pieces, but never knew that they endorsed candidates. I still would prefer news outlets to be nuetral, that seems like the more ethical thing to do.
Joeys_Rattata
Neo Member
The New York Times has been endorsing presidential candidates since 1860, starting with Lincoln
why are people upset that they chose to endorse someone in 2016, following 156 years of tradition?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/23/opinion/presidential-endorsement-timeline.html
why are people upset that they chose to endorse someone in 2016, following 156 years of tradition?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/23/opinion/presidential-endorsement-timeline.html
Let's stop pretending. Let's stop doing the lesser of two evils.
There is no lesser evil. Stop lying to yourself. Just let it wash over you, or as Liz Lemon would say when describing an ex-boyfriend of her's..
Yeah, like that. The election is an allegory for Dennis from 30 Rock.
FOH with this both sides are the same bullshit.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
You've read a newspaper? The editorial section is separate from the news.
The editorial board of a newspaper and the people who put together the non-opinion coverage are separate. The editorial board of the NYT endorsing Clinton does not mean that they won't publish negative articles about Clinton or that they'll turn into a organized hit-squad against Trump. There's nothing unethical about it.
azealia banks what are you doing
Well I for one would certainly hate to live in a world where news was just news and not some dickhole's opinion.
That sure does sound awful.
lol never heard parks & rec described that way
BarringGaffner
Member
This your first election? What a stupid thing to say.
entremet
Member
This has been happening since the foundation of the US.
I'm pretty shocked many people are learning this just during this election cycle.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Clinton sucks a little bit, Trump sucks more than anyone else in US history. It's not even comparable. Clinton "sucks" the same way Barack Obama "sucks": she's not perfect, but she is smart, experienced, educated, and a rational human being.
Compare Clinton's lapses of judgment and minor scandals to this list here (and this is a partial list, for example he doesn't even mention climate change or LGBT rights), and this is like saying "cabbage sucks, but you know, eating shit is just as bad".
No, it's fucking not.
The other choices are not better than Clinton. Jill Stein is a buffoon who thinks wifi can cause cancer and Gary Johnson is an ignorant asshole who thinks the free market can solve climate change.
This is not a rational way to look at the world. The stakes being that high is why it's important to NOT compare cabbage to feces.
Editorials aren't news, they aren't treated as such and get their own clearly marked section of the paper.
Garrett Hawke
Member
Still waiting for that candidate that agrees with me on literally every single issue
99% agreement just doesn't cut it when there's a country at stake!
99% agreement just doesn't cut it when there's a country at stake!
Aaronology
Member
Public servants are also civilians, excluding police/firefighters . The United States Armed Forces is under civilian control, for instance, and the Commander in Chief is a position that can only be held by civilians.
Maaaan I wish I didn't click that link lol. Some of those names are really bumming me out.
Why does Hillary suck? She's the most qualified candidate running on the most progressive platform in history.
The NYT endorsing Clinton is not surprising. What IS surprising is several prominent conservative papers endorsing Clinton, one of which has not endorsed a Democrat in over a 100 years.
But yeah, "both the same" right?
entremet
Member
The whole point of the news is not just news, but advocacy and that's where the editorial sections have been integral in this cause.
Newspaper have had their hands in making opined statements about the Abolitionist Movements, Woman's Suffrage, the Environment--prescient now due to the Climate Change.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
The editorial boards of respected newspapers aren't generally regarded as dickholes, they contribute to a standard of educated discourse on politics and current events. Each paper usually has a particular editorial bent (conservative or liberal).
Sickboy007
Member
He's always been a scumbag, that's why he plays one so well.
hipsterpants
Member
It's cool to see this get such widespread attention, hopefully a lot of people read it. I'm so looking forward to their Trump takedown on Monday.
re: James Woods had a pretty crazy 9/11 experience. I don't agree with him but I can easily see why he went down the path he did.
re: James Woods had a pretty crazy 9/11 experience. I don't agree with him but I can easily see why he went down the path he did.
- Status