For The Post, the wrong choice at the worst possible time

The Washington Post ^ | 10/25/2024 8:21 PM EDT | Ruth Marcus

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I love The Washington Post, deep in my bones. Last month marked my 40th year of proud work for the institution, in the newsroom and in the Opinions section. I have never been more disappointed in the newspaper than I am today, with the tragically flawed decision not to make an endorsement in the presidential race.

At a moment when The Post should have been stepping forward to sound the clarion call about the multiple dangers that Donald Trump poses to the nation and the world, it has chosen instead to pull back. That is the wrong choice at the worst possible time.

I write — I dissent — from the perspective of someone who spent two decades as a member of The Post’s editorial board. (I stepped away last year.) From that experience, I can say: you win some and lose some. No one, perhaps not even the editorial page editor, agrees with every position the board takes. At bottom, the owner of the newspaper is entitled to have an editorial page that reflects the owner’s point of view.

In addition, let’s not overestimate the significance of presidential endorsements. As much as we might like to believe otherwise, they have limited persuasive value for the vanishingly small number of undecided voters. They are distinct from endorsements for local office, involving issues and personalities about which voters might have scant knowledge; in these circumstances, editorial boards can serve as useful, trusted proxies. A presidential endorsement serves a different purpose: to reflect the soul and underlying values of the institution.

[Rocco DiPippo]

Google for a pic of this bloated, commie heifer. She looks precisely as one would imagine a “Karen” would.

[philman_36]

From that experience, I can say: you win some and lose some.
Some you win and some you lose
Your preference they didn't choose.
Panties all twisted in a knot
Often cause the brain to rot.

Liberal tears are raining down
Puddles gather in the town.
Children stomp them with their boot
Watching them do so is such a hoot.

[American Infidel]

Newspapers should not be endorsing political candidates at all if they want to be seen as objective observers who are simply "calling balls and strikes".

I never quite understood the notion of presidential endorsements from newspapers, but I guess since it is technically coming from the editorial board there is a theoretical separation from the journalistic side, but it still doesn't seem like something that an actual "news" outlet should be doing IMHO.

[silverleaf]

And waste 40 years of propagandizing to a shrinking readership?
If the value of the Post declines much more, Elon Musk should buy it.

[subterfuge]

Well I for one was going to vote for kalama but after the Posts non endorsement I’m switching to Hit...er Trump.

[T.B. Yoits]

From Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post, "Last month marked my 40th year of proud work for the institution..."

Imagine living life so morally bankrupt and intellectually deficient that she's proud of that.

Forty years of it. Forty years. Forty years of depraved indifference to her own life while escaping into soulless propaganda work for a syndicate.

[cgbg]

“40th year of proud work”

There are only two possible reasons she is proud of working for that CIA controlled propaganda trash outlet:

—She is evil.

—She is stupid.

[CatOwner]

If the value of the Post declines much more, Elon Musk should buy it.

I would hope Musk wouldn't want to lose money on such a purchase. Beyond that, good luck finding enough journalists who are even close to being fair and balanced.