kilroy69

This is one of my favorite songs and I play it at least once a week while at work

Josh Gordon would like to have a word with him.

Places like the Wapo, NPR, CNN, MSNBC are the worst. We talk all the time about how Russia and China interferes with the elections but we never talk about how the media interferes on a routine basis and masks their opinion as news coverage. At this point as many people believe TMZ more than any newspaper because they actually report. I am VERY comfortable with the media NOT endorsing ANYONE from EITHER party. That is not their job. Encourage people to vote but do not chose sides.

What I think is so amusing about this is that the media will look at you with a straight face and tell you that they are the backbone of a democracy. Then turn around and be biased for something they like.

“The non-endorsement undermines the integrity of the editorial board and every single endorsement we make.” Ohhhhh that is funny. She thinks that the public looks at them as those who have integrity. That is a fallacy. 40 percent of the population has no faith in the media. Instead of endorsing ANY candidate why not just encourage people to vote. It is not the job of the media to endorse ANYONE. Atop editor at the Los Angeles Times, California’s largest newspaper, resigned Wednesday over a growing rift surrounding that paper’s decision to not make a presidential candidate endorsement in the run-up to the November election. Word of editorials editor Mariel Garza’s resignation first hit social media early Wednesday and has since been confirmed by the Columbia Journalism Review. Garza’s resignation from the LA Times comes after reports of direct influence over the editorials section by Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, the biotech billionaire who’s owned the newspaper since 2018. Soon-Shiong reportedly blocked plans for the newspaper’s editorial arm (which operates independently from the newsroom) to endorse Kamala Harris for president over Donald Trump, as reported by Semafor earlier this week. Garza told the Columbia Journalism Review that she disagreed with the editorial interjection by the owner and felt that “standing up” against the decision was necessary. “I want to make it clear that I am not okay with us being silent,” Garza told Sewell Chan (a previous editorial page editor for the LA Times) of the Columbia Journalism Review. “We do not comment on internal discussions or decisions about editorials or endorsements,” a spokesperson for the LA Times told SFGATE earlier this week when asked about the lack of a presidential endorsement. “It makes us look craven and hypocritical, maybe even a bit sexist and racist,” reads Garza’s resignation letter, reprinted by the Columbia Journalism Review. “How could we spend eight years railing against Trump and the danger his leadership poses to the country and then fail to endorse the perfectly decent Democrat challenger—who we previously endorsed for the US Senate? “The non-endorsement undermines the integrity of the editorial board and every single endorsement we make.” Soon-Shiong, meanwhile, took to X on Wednesday to offer an explanation for the non-endorsement. “The Editorial Board was provided the opportunity to draft a factual analysis of all the POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies by EACH candidate during their tenures at the White House, and how these policies affected the nation,” the post reads in part. “Instead of adopting this path as suggested, the Editorial Board chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision,” the post concludes. The Los Angeles Times has endorsed a presidential candidate every election since 2008, and this year, the editorial board did make many other down-ballot endorsements, including Adam Schiff, D-Burbank, over Steve Garvey in the U.S. Senate race. The editorials team has also vocally opposed Donald Trump in a number of ways, including a “Top 10 reasons not to vote for Donald Trump” opinion piece by columnist Jackie Calmes on Oct. 20. One state over in Nevada, the Las Vegas Review-Journal endorsed Donald Trump for president. While California is a deeply blue state politically, a formal endorsement for president still carries considerable weight — particularly during this election, given Harris’ California upbringing and career. The Trump campaign and other media outlets quickly positioned the lack of an endorsement as a negative for the Harris campaign, with Newsweek saying that the vice president was “dealt a blow” by not receiving an endorsement from the largest newspaper in her home state. Other people called the decision to not endorse a candidate “deplorable.” This is not the first time that Soon-Shiong, who purchased the paper for $500 million in 2018, has exerted pressure that led to the resignation of a high-ranking editor. In January of this year, Kevin Merida, the paper’s top editor, stepped down over concerns surrounding Soon-Shiong’s attempt to influence a coming news story about an acquaintance of the owner.

Henry has 145 carries which puts him on pace for around 300 carries in the regular season which is something he can do with ease. Getting a bye would likely rest him more than limiting his carries in games they should be winning.

The colts would have been better off sitting him from the start to allow him to grow and mature behind a good QB. Instead they forced him in there when he was not even a good college qb. If he could have sat from the start like mahomes or love he would have had a much better chance to actually learn how to be a qb instead of a rb with a big arm

Fixed

Washington Post reporter ‘heartbroken’ after mom cancels subscription over nixed Harris endorsement: ‘Hurting us, not our owner’ Liberals really do not want to have an independent newspaper. They want an echo chamber that reinforces their ideas are right.

I mean to be fair. The cowboys are really just helping out their fanbase. Instead of setting them up for heartbreak when Dak chokes late in the season, they are just getting it over early.

no need for it. The balls have chips in them that have gps. There is no room for error.

Not sure man. The idiot in Baltimore would like a word. The ONLY times the ravens have lost is when Henry does not get 20 carries. How many carries did Henry get? 11. What happened? They lost of course. That is a DIRECT result of pisss poor coaching. He is the best offensive weapon in football and you rush him 11 times?

It does not work unless you say it 3 times like swiper no swipe. Or beetlejuice

More than anything I really feel like that layoff killed him. Had he been allowed to be around football and practice I think he would have come out of it ok. Had he used that time to pay some practice squad players to come work out with him he would have been fine. Instead he likely just sat at home and got fat. His brain lost the ability to read coverages which in turn made him uncork bad throws. He is a broken QB that will likely not even be able to get back to replacement level and certainly not a high level ever again.

It really looked like they had it down. It is really simple. Any game they give henry 20 carries in they win. Any game they do not they lose. Lamar is great but that threat of henry makes the game a lot easier and if they are not going to use him like dumb focks they get what they deserve just like today. No way should they have lost to the browns. ANY game you do not make henry the focal point and then play action off that you are fuckingg stupid. The coach will come out and say something like we needed to get henry more touches but really the ravens let the browns get into their heads and play a game they are clearly not good at. The only good thing is that barkley did not have a great game and henry still got a rushing td in a crappy game so those of us betting on him to be OPOY can still see him in the lead for that.

The ravens coaching staff lost them that game. They gave the best offensive weapon in football 11 carries and dropped back Jackson 30 times. That is absolutely nonsense. Henrry still scored but he averaged 6.6 ypc and they did not even try to get him involved. They deserved to lose that game

I took the Packers to win, reed over 58, Kraft over 35, Thomas over 60, Engram over 49 + ravens win, Judy over 43 yards and Njoku over 59. +8180 for a potential cashout of $4140

That is literally what she did. THEN she has the nerve to say that she is being silenced because she can not do what her employer asks. It was not an unreasonable request. And it is a pretty good framework to allow both sides.

Giving them a structure and telling them what to say is not the same thing. He gave them the structure that he wanted them to use and they could have said anything about the policies for both. Good or bad. Instead that was too confining for her.

It was not a problem when Kamala did it. Is it a problem now when Trump does it?

Ok so when the owner of the company says I do not want your opinion on who to endorse. I want you to give a non-biased rundown of policy THAT is what you do. Newsroom or Editorial department. Your job is to do what the owner or board tells you to do. If not you can kick rocks and be replaced with someone else who can follow simple focking directions OR start your own newspaper. To be fair I would prefer NO media endorse ANYONE for office. It has nothing to do with Trump, Harris or this election. It is not the medias job to endorse candidates. It is their job to report on them. Once you endorse a candidate as a news org it allows you to be biased for your candidate because you feel like your fighting the good fight. She even made it a point to mention how she felt this election is differen and trump is dangerous. Which is pretty much the standard line for any democrat. Democracy is on the line every 4 years according to them and each time you do not vote dem it dies.

That is NOT what they were asked to do. They were asked to not give the impression they are biased by giving both candidates policies a run down. They could not manage to do that without injecting their own personal politics into the situation.

"In a post on the social media platform X that did not directly mention the resignation, LA Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong said the board was asked to do a factual analysis of the policies of Harris and Republican former President Donald Trump during their time at the White House. Additionally, “The board was asked to provide (its) understanding of the policies and plans enunciated by the candidates during this campaign and its potential effect on the nation in the next four years,” he wrote. “In this way, with this clear and non-partisan information side-by-side, our readers could decide who would be worthy of being president for the next four years.” So instead of doing what they were asked they decided to try to do an endorsement of one candidate instead of doing an analysis of both. Yet the Liberal Editor could not accept this and is trying to make this look like she was being silenced.

I thought that was Liz Cheny at first.

As Homer Simpson would say. She is SMRT.