Posted on 12/19/2016 7:38:41 PM PST by Kaslin
The Dallas Morning News has endorsed a Republican in every presidential election, but decided to buck the trend and endorse two-time presidential loser Hillary Clinton. That appears to have hit the publication’s bottom line, as scores of customers have decided to scrap their subscriptions. T. Becket Adams at The Washington Examiner had more:
"[S]ome people have cancelled their subscriptions, so we lost some customers at a time when it's tough to lose customers," editor Mike Wilson told the Washington Examiner Tuesday evening.
Earlier, in an interview with Poynter, Wilson said the Dallas Morning News experienced some unpleasant pushback after it announced its support for Clinton, breaking its more than 75-year-old tradition of endorsing GOP candidates for president.
"Certainly we've paid a price for our presidential recommendation, but then, we write our editorials based on principle, and sometimes principle comes at a cost," he said. "I've had a lot of conversations with readers lately, and I respect their views and their right to disagree with us. The most important thing to us is that they vote, even if it's not for our favorite candidate, because democracy doesn't work if people don't vote."
Dallas Morning News made their decision and they’re willing to accept the consequences, yet wasn’t denying Hillary Clinton the presidency the Right’s overriding principle for the 2016? Granted, I was not a Trump supporter - you all know this from my past blogs. I even said that he wouldn’t be the nominee, let alone the next president. But then he won the 2016 primary, he clinched the nomination, and now he’s going to be the next president of the United States. My guys, Rubio and Walker, had their shot. They lost. Trump won, he was the best shot we had to defeat Clinton, and so I had to fall in line. Given how things turned out, I’ve never been happier to be wrong. Clinton will never be president. That’s the best Christmas gift of all for the country. As for principle, it’s pretty clear that his cabinet isn’t filled with soft left-wingers. He’s made sound choices that have garnered the approval of ardent liberals, like John Kerry, to experienced Republicans in foreign policy, like former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Let’s see what he does—and I’m sure The Dallas Morning News will do the same. The era of Obama is over. The Trump presidency is about to begin.
Newspapers and horseshoe manufacturers need government subsidies now! (according to Keynesian economists) ;-)
I don’t think Keynes would have supported government subsidies for specific dying industries. Remember, he wrote
The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money was published in 1936, and written at a time when the great depression was still on. There was a famous exchanges of letters between Keynes and Hayek in which Keynes indicated that he supported many of Hayek’s positions.
Do not confuse Keynes (who died in 1946) with left-wing “Keynesians.”
DEFUND democrats,dhimmies, deceivers, collectivists, criminals, manipulators, marxists, socialists, scumbags, tyrants, totalitarians...foreign and domestic.
Burn baby, burn... :)
Bug bye!
the smug editors and columnists at these papers got their just desserts as they watched the business model go up in smoke.
papers will report on bad pothole repair or slow mail but they won’t touch stories on bad service at car dealerships. Gee, I wonder why?
One of the "truthiest" posts I've seen on FR, especially the first two statements (schadenfreude on the second one in particular).
I still remember one article from years ago in a small town newspaper about a local car dealer who was a psychopath, prone to literally flip out and kick people's @$$es. They reported on court proceedings for an aggravated battery charge by using his full name, including his middle name, in an attempt to obscure who had actually committed the crime (he was convicted - no allegedly to it).
The press needs to be destroyed and rebuilt from scratch.
This is the first time in my adult life (I am 63) that I have not subscribed to a newspaper. I seem to be surviving so far...
People understandably have this idealistic view of the media as people only interested in reporting the facts...regardless of how much people like us try to convince them that it’s not the case (and trust me, if you ever see the writings that people in ‘Journalism’ schools write, you’d throw up). They just write us off as a bunch of talk-radio brainwashed types.
But when THEIR newspaper, the space that they’ve trusted for decades, now outs themselves and their political agenda, everything we’ve told them is SHOVED IN THEIR FACES and they can’t ignore it...and so the cancellations.
The ONLY WAY this can end is when rich Tea Party types actually buy some of these outlets and replaces their staffs with people that are NOT ‘Journalism’ majors. In fact, I still don’t see why ‘Journalism’ should be a college major - what is so special about it, learning to plug-in a microphone to a camera? Get REAL PEOPLE that represent the community reporting the news and writing the editorials, and hell, I may even subscribe to paper editions (Houston Chronicle, in my case). Of course I don’t see that happening, so I’ll have to live with my $300/year savings by not subscribing.
“[S]ome people have cancelled their subscriptions, so we lost some customers at a time when it’s tough to lose customers,”
If you were to ask them what business they were in some would say information provider, or entertainment or news, and all would be wrong. What they are describing is bait for their real product, eyeballs.
Newspapers (and television news, and magazines) are all in the advertising business, that is where they make their money.
What gets printed on their pages is just content, bait if you will, to get as many people to look at their product and at the ads.
By choosing a political side they pretty much annoy half of their readers, and in this case many stopped their subscription and most likely never get back.
Nothing killed newspapers, they committed suicide.
I started reading newspapers when they were 5 cents, then 10 cents, and the last when they were 25 cents. I noticed at a store recently where the daily price is now $1. No wonder they are losing readership.
I have read that article. Very telling.
Same here in Oklahoma City. The “Daily Oklahoman” is about as conservative as they come but why should I pay for something that I can get for free off the internet? News, comics, coupons, jobs, etc., I can more and better of each on line.
My brother, his peers and friends from work all definitely exist in their own leftist world, isolated from anyone who does not live by the agenda they try to set.
Well stated and it seems that the Coastal Mini-Party (TM) all shares this viewpoint. We are surprised that they are surprised at how the election turned out. They had, inexplicably, manipulated their own polls ie predictions to make themselves feel better rather than to anticipate the outcome of the race and, just maybe, to do something about it! Instead, they smirked and sneered and claimed that Hillary was 10 pts ahead and cruising.
But I believe the arrogance is a front for a much darker, secretive emotion: cowardice. We joke about Title IX battleaxes and Pajama Boys but all of these lefties seem to share a primal fear of direct confrontation. They hide behind rules, review boards, group protests, media outlets, etc. When they are involved in head-to-head debates their success is on a par with the Cleveland Browns. They simply cannot state and defend a position and almost instinctively fly into an ad hominem rage.
Their obsession with Saturday Night Live sketches is another aspect. SNL is an unfunny relic of the VCR age. Political Correctness has killed comedy stone dead anyway due to all the so-called rules. Someone doing a Trump or Hillary impression for 30 seconds is amusing. Someone doing a 5 minute sketch on it is tiresome. But SNL is the collective point-and-snicker tool of the left just as it was with the Daily Show, Colbert et al.
I have long held that leftists, especially the young ones, are like the cowards on a school bus, acting as the bully's Greek chorus, laughing at his jokes and at the target of his abuse but privately scared to death that he will pick on them next.
But..they are irresistible catnip to a group of people who want to strut around at election time and announce how wonderful, smart, tolerant and fair they are.
The endorsements are usually 10% about the candidate and 90% about the writer(s). Even when papers have refused to make an endorsement they tell us about it at length - because the candidates don’t measure up to the writers’ high opinion of themselves, apparently.
Telling media types not to make endorsements would be like telling a prom queen she couldn’t use a mirror to get ready that night :)
Leni
Most of the uninformed voters who would have reacted favorably to the endorsement probably don’t read or buy newspapers.
Did the paper describe what principles were involved?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.