Neither Bush nor Kerry meets our endorsement test

Crushelits ^ | Sunday, October 24, 2004 | The Detroit News

[FreeAtlanta]

I don't think News Papers or other "News" Organizations should endorse anyone. They are just throwing their bias in our faces and saying, "Take IT!" JMHO

[sixstringer]

Will they be endorsing Alfred E. Neumann then???

[CWOJackson]

LOL! The Detriot News has been hijacked by the Loonitarians and Constipation Party.

[Dan from Michigan]

The Detroit News is supposedly the conservative paper, but they haven't been conservative in years.

1. Remember it's a GANNETT paper.
2. Tom Bray's no longer running the show there.
3. It's the paper of Deb Price and you don't get more liberal.
4. Outside of endorsements, they consistantly take leftist positions, particulary on 2nd amendment issues.

[Dan from Michigan]

The Detroit News is a conservative CINO paper that endorsed Bush in 2000.

Basically they are whining because Bush isn't conservative enough. A bit silly.

It's an excuse they use since they can't go completely left to alienate their base.

[okie01]

Neither Bush nor Kerry meets our endorsement test

To translate:

1. John Kerry is a liberal. But he's a doofus.

2. George W. Bush ain't no doofus. But, then, he ain't no liberal, either.

We pass.

< /translation>

[Dan from Michigan]

The Detroit News has turned into a POS. It's editorial group used to be a fun smart bunch of pro-private sector, conservative writers. I don't know what happened.

I have a good idea.

1. Gannett
2. Joint operating Agreement with the Free Press
3. Deb Price
4. Tom Bray isn't running the show anymore.

[counterpunch]

I don't think News Papers or other "News" Organizations should endorse anyone. They are just throwing their bias in our faces and saying, "Take IT!" JMHO

You are absolutely right. However, seeing who they endorse (while not typically a surprise) does at least allow us to reassess their past coverage and put it in the perspective of their partisan slant.

But in the case of this paper, it is a special circumstance, because they actually went out of their way to issue a non-endorsement of both candidates. That is quite different from simply remaining silent. While it would be novel and refreshing for these self-important publications to withhold any endorsement, this is definitely not the way to do it. If they are going to make an assessment and endorsement (or non-endorsement) then they need to take a difinitive stand on which if the two candidates ultimately is better. Even if they're both bad. Even if one is only slightly better. And then there is always 3rd party candidates. But to just say "they all suck" seems to me to be dangerously cynical and something of a shallow, trendy game of cop-out which we just cannot afford in a serious time of war such as this.