L.A. times editor throws a fit and resigns over Kamala non-endorsement.

[nobody 2,567]

4 hours ago, thegeneral said:

I think her point is that they were not endorsing a candidate in this election, when they had in all others, so perhaps it would look odd and some could create their own narrative as to why.

The quoted piece says they endorsed presidential candidates since 2008.  I took that to mean they probably didn't endorse anyone in 2004.  Am I wrong?

[nobody 2,567]

4 hours ago, jerryskids said:

For the record, I've only been commenting on this pinnacle of journalists being concerned that the lack of an endorsement implies misogyny and racism.

I don't particularly care if a leftist rag wants to endorse its candidate.  It was interesting to learn though that the owner is, if not a Trump fan, at least not a TDS sky screamer like his editorial staff.   

I especially enjoyed the part where he instructed his employees to do an analysis on each candidate's policies and she was like, "nah fūck that.  I quit."

Like damn, wouldn't that be pretty easy given that Trump is so evil?  

[thegeneral 2,914]

4 minutes ago, nobody said:

The quoted piece says they endorsed presidential candidates since 2008.  I took that to mean they probably didn't endorse anyone in 2004.  Am I wrong?

They endorsed them for 90 years, stopped in 1972, then started again in 2008.

[thegeneral 2,914]

19 minutes ago, nobody said:

I especially enjoyed the part where he instructed his employees to do an analysis on each candidate's policies and she was like, "nah fūck that.  I quit."

Like damn, wouldn't that be pretty easy given that Trump is so evil?  

What is the purpose of an Editorial section of a newspaper?

They were told to list out information about the candidates and make no endorsement by the owner. They choose not to do this and instead did nothing. This lady quit and said why.

Team Donald took advantage of this situation by saying something to the effect that even the LA Times won’t endorse Kamala.

I think that would be a great reason why this woman no longer wanted to be associated with the editorial portion of the paper. 

 

[kilroy69 1,216]

37 minutes ago, nobody said:

I especially enjoyed the part where he instructed his employees to do an analysis on each candidate's policies and she was like, "nah fūck that.  I quit."

Like damn, wouldn't that be pretty easy given that Trump is so evil?  

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. 

[jerryskids 6,573]

35 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

What is the purpose of an Editorial section of a newspaper?

They were told to list out information about the candidates and make no endorsement by the owner. They choose not to do this and instead did nothing. This lady quit and said why.

Team Donald took advantage of this situation by saying something to the effect that even the LA Times won’t endorse Kamala.

I think that would be a great reason why this woman no longer wanted to be associated with the editorial portion of the paper. 

 

I dunno, what is the purpose of the Editorial section of a newspaper?

One might think that, for an election, an Editorial section would provide editorials defending each candidate, and let their intelligent readership process the information and decide.  That seems like what the owner wanted.

You and this "journalist" seem to think otherwise.   

[thegeneral 2,914]

20 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

I dunno, what is the purpose of the Editorial section of a newspaper?

One might think that, for an election, an Editorial section would provide editorials defending each candidate, and let their intelligent readership process the information and decide.  That seems like what the owner wanted.

You and this "journalist" seem to think otherwise.   

There’s the news section to collect all your information and make decisions. There’s any number of resources to research to make your decision. For all I know this paper does have Op-Ed’s that give an alternate opinion.

The lady quit because she disagrees with what the owner wants to do in Editorial. Isn’t that what you would want to have happen? 

I really don’t give a fock what the LA Times does I just don’t understand what the issue is here.

 

[Frozenbeernuts 2,115]

5 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

And if there is someone who has never played the victim it is Donald Trump.

Again- there is no way you all believe the things you say.

He plays it up sometimes, sure. But he doesn't believe he is a victim deep down. If he believed he was actually a victim he would have lost so much by now. He is winning more than ever. One of the most beloved Americans of all time. I'm not saying I love the guy, but there are a ton of people who do.

[Sean Mooney 1,938]

46 minutes ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

He plays it up sometimes, sure. But he doesn't believe he is a victim deep down. If he believed he was actually a victim he would have lost so much by now. He is winning more than ever. One of the most beloved Americans of all time. I'm not saying I love the guy, but there are a ton of people who do.

I can believe he doesn't see himself as a victim....but he definitely uses himself as the victim as a selling point. It's his method of being "just like you..." when he isn't anything like the common man. He's manipulating them intelligently. 

[Frozenbeernuts 2,115]

8 hours ago, Sean Mooney said:

I can believe he doesn't see himself as a victim....but he definitely uses himself as the victim as a selling point. It's his method of being "just like you..." when he isn't anything like the common man. He's manipulating them intelligently. 

While he plays it up sometimes, he also has a good reason for it. The media hates him except for Fox. He has now been called Hitler how many times? 2 assassination attempts. Whether you believe it's true or not, there is enough evidence to suggest the 2020 was possibly rigged. That's some pretty serious stuff.

[Sean Mooney 1,938]

53 minutes ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

While he plays it up sometimes, he also has a good reason for it. The media hates him except for Fox. He has now been called Hitler how many times? 2 assassination attempts. Whether you believe it's true or not, there is enough evidence to suggest the 2020 was possibly rigged. That's some pretty serious stuff.

2020 wasn't rigged. He lost and can't accept it to this day. He couldn't accept that he didn't win 2016 by more.

Also- the media likes Trump in the role he is in. It gives them stuff that provides ratings. They don't hate him. 

[avoiding injuries 1,511]

Did they do the analysis without her? If so, sounds like she was replaceable and quit for nothing.  
Id also be interested in reading their analysis and how they skewed it towards Harris. 

[Strike 5,211]

Washington Post won't endorse Kamalatoe.  No word on any tantrums.......err......resignations yet.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/25/nx-s1-5165353/washington-post-presidential-endorsement-trump-harris

[Patented Phil 1,469]

23 minutes ago, Strike said:

Washington Post won't endorse Kamalatoe.  No word on any tantrums.......err......resignations yet.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/25/nx-s1-5165353/washington-post-presidential-endorsement-trump-harris

Extraordinary.   Never thought I’d see the day.  The realization that Trump is going to be President again - and this time with an angry mandate - is setting in.  Like cockroaches scattering when the lights are turned on.

[nobody 2,567]

19 hours ago, thegeneral said:

They endorsed them for 90 years, stopped in 1972, then started again in 2008.

So they hadn't done it in "all other elections" as you said.  Look at your shoes and feel shame.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,947]

How can they not endorse Harris when the other option is HITLER! ?

[thegeneral 2,914]

32 minutes ago, nobody said:

So they hadn't done it in "all other elections" as you said.  Look at your shoes and feel shame.

Lol. Yes that is more accurate. 

[thegeneral 2,914]

30 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

How can they not endorse Harris when the other option is HITLER! ?

Now you see why this broad quit her cushy job. It’s called conviction.

[squistion 1,953]

Meanwhile The Washington Post endorsement for president had been written by the editorial staff and was ready to publish but was killed when Jeff Bezos decided the paper would not endorse.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/25/media/washington-post-wont-endorse-presidential-candidate/index.html

Washington Post won’t endorse candidate in 2024 presidential election after Bezos decision

New YorkCNN — 

For the first time in decades, The Washington Post will not endorse a candidate in this year’s presidential election, the newspaper’s publisher announced Friday, a decision that sparked widespread outrage among the paper’s staffers.

“The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election,” Post publisher Will Lewis said in a statement. “We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.”

The Post reported the decision not to endorse was made by the newspaper’s billionaire owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, citing two sources briefed on the matter.

The Post’s editorial page staffers had drafted an endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris and it was ready to be approved by its board, but the draft was never presented, a person with knowledge of the matter told CNN.

“Many on the editorial board are surprised and angry,” the person said.

The Post has endorsed a presidential candidate in every election since the 1980s. In his statement, Lewis referred to the Editorial Board’s past decisions to not endorse a candidate, noting that it is a right “we are going back to.”

[jerryskids 6,573]

2 hours ago, Strike said:

Washington Post won't endorse Kamalatoe.  No word on any tantrums.......err......resignations yet.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/25/nx-s1-5165353/washington-post-presidential-endorsement-trump-harris

This is fun:

Quote

Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly.

"This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR.

We can't be Leftie hacks!  Democracy still dies in darkness$#@!   

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

2 hours ago, nobody said:

So they hadn't done it in "all other elections" as you said.  Look at your shoes and feel shame.

I think he meant all types of elections, such as Senate, HoR, DA, stuff like that.  Not every presidential election since their inception.  I could be wrong though.

[Patented Phil 1,469]

3 hours ago, Strike said:

Washington Post won't endorse Kamalatoe.  No word on any tantrums.......err......resignations yet.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/25/nx-s1-5165353/washington-post-presidential-endorsement-trump-harris

Don’t take long… the Leftist pig editor quit this afternoon.  Took his ball and went home.

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

21 hours ago, thegeneral said:

What is the purpose of an Editorial section of a newspaper?

They were told to list out information about the candidates and make no endorsement by the owner. They choose not to do this and instead did nothing. This lady quit and said why.

Team Donald took advantage of this situation by saying something to the effect that even the LA Times won’t endorse Kamala.

I think that would be a great reason why this woman no longer wanted to be associated with the editorial portion of the paper. 

 

Honestly, I had no idea what the purpose of an Editorial section of a newspaper was until this came about.  I never read the newspaper.  Found this...

Quote

The Purpose of an Editorial

An editorial is essential in shaping discussions around significant social, political, or cultural issues. They present an informed, well-argued perspective intended to prompt reflection, discussion, and, sometimes, action among readers. Moreover, they have the potential to influence policy-makers or the direction of public debate directly.

 

Seems to me that this is exactly what the owner asked them to do, and they didn't do it.  Makes sense that he wouldn't then endorse a candidate.  Garza was upset that he blocked them from endorsing Harris, so no, it's not that she's mad that no endorsement was made, but that the one they wanted, wasn't made. "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."

Further: "It makes us look craven and hypocritical, maybe even a bit sexist and racist,” reads Garza’s resignation letter"

Again, she's clearly mad that Harris wasn't being endorsed, and not that an endorsement wasn't being made.

As the initial article said, other endorsements were made, so clearly it was only this one that had Garza up in arms, and it's clear that it's because they didn't endorse Harris.

[squistion 1,953]

 

1 hour ago, squistion said:

Meanwhile The Washington Post endorsement for president had been written by the editorial staff and was ready to publish but was killed when Jeff Bezos decided the paper would not endorse.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/25/media/washington-post-wont-endorse-presidential-candidate/index.html

Washington Post won’t endorse candidate in 2024 presidential election after Bezos decision

https://x.com/rothschildmd/status/1849879416442331431

The dumbest part of the WaPo/LA Times not endorsing at the behest of their billionaire owners is that it turned a non-story into a major one. Their endorsements of Harris would have been a blip. Their silence is a bright light shining on their cowardice.

[thegeneral 2,914]

2 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Honestly, I had no idea what the purpose of an Editorial section of a newspaper was until this came about.  I never read the newspaper.  Found this...

 

 

Seems to me that this is exactly what the editor asked them to do, and they didn't do it.  Makes sense that he wouldn't then endorse a candidate.  Garza was upset that he blocked them from endorsing Harris, so no, it's not that she's mad that no endorsement was made, but that the one they wanted, wasn't made. "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."

Further: "It makes us look craven and hypocritical, maybe even a bit sexist and racist,” reads Garza’s resignation letter"

Again, she's clearly mad that Harris wasn't being endorsed, and not that an endorsement wasn't being made.

As the initial article said, other endorsements were made, so clearly it was only this one that had Garza up in arms, and it's clear that it's because they didn't endorse Harris.

Editorial sections of the paper give opinions of the editorial team. They are just that, opinions.

The News department offers the news.

This woman was going to write their staff’s endorsement of Kamala (shocker!) and the owner told them not to. She says eat a d|ck new owner guy and quits.

Team Trump jumps on the non-endorsement as proof that even pinko, commie leftists won’t endorse Kamala. This is disingenuous, a lie really, and exhibit A of why she quit - she doesn’t want to be associated with this especially not when it is used in a lie.

The dude owns the paper and he can do what he wants, the lady doesn’t want to work there because of it. This is all fine.

It’s not some example of the media is broken or whatever point was being made in that regard was what I have been responding to.

[Patented Phil 1,469]

Celebrities and other butt-hurt Libtards are canceling their subscriptions to the Washington Post and the LA Times.  It’s like Christmas in October.

[Patented Phil 1,469]

5 minutes ago, squistion said:

 

https://x.com/rothschildmd/status/1849879416442331431

The dumbest part of the WaPo/LA Times not endorsing at the behest of their billionaire owners is that it turned a non-story into a major one. Their endorsements of Harris would have been a blip. Their silence is a bright light shining on their cowardice.

So it’s “cowardice” for a Liberal newspaper to not endorse the Liberal candidate?

Somebody needs a dictionary for Christmas.

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

12 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Editorial sections of the paper give opinions of the editorial team. They are just that, opinions.

The News department offers the news.

This woman was going to write their staff’s endorsement of Kamala (shocker!) and the owner told them not to. She says eat a d|ck new owner guy and quits.

Team Trump jumps on the non-endorsement as proof that even pinko, commie leftists won’t endorse Kamala. This is disingenuous, a lie really, and exhibit A of why she quit - she doesn’t want to be associated with this especially not when it is used in a lie.

The dude owns the paper and he can do what he wants, the lady doesn’t want to work there because of it. This is all fine.

It’s not some example of the media is broken or whatever point was being made in that regard was what I have been responding to.

I mean, I don't know how to respond to this.  I just posted what the editorial section does and you ignored it and gave your own interpretation.  LOL  

You do you bud. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

18 minutes ago, squistion said:

 

https://x.com/rothschildmd/status/1849879416442331431

The dumbest part of the WaPo/LA Times not endorsing at the behest of their billionaire owners is that it turned a non-story into a major one. Their endorsements of Harris would have been a blip. Their silence is a bright light shining on their cowardice.

OR... maybe they don't think there's a better candidate and your feelings are hurt.  I know you won't read this, but that's because you're not very smart and why I'm on ignore.

[thegeneral 2,914]

1 minute ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I mean, I don't know how to respond to this.  I just posted what the editorial section does and you ignored it and gave your own interpretation.  LOL  

You do you bud. 

You posted a blurb you found on the internet from some random site.

This lady quit because up til this point the place she worked at provided opinion on who the Editorial staff (run independently from the News department at the paper) would endorse for Prez. The were instructed to change that for this election and she didn’t care to be a part of it.

[TBayXXXVII 2,485]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

You posted a blurb you found on the internet from some random site.

This lady quit because up til this point the place she worked at provided opinion on who the Editorial staff (run independently from the News department at the paper) would endorse for Prez. The were instructed to change that for this election and she didn’t care to be a part of it.

Yeah, let's go with that.  LOL

[thegeneral 2,914]

Just now, TBayXXXVII said:

Yeah, let's go with that.  LOL

Because that is what happened. Why do you think she and others quit?

If you want random bulllshit off a Google search here’s the first thing that comes up regarding this:

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-an-editorial-column-and-an-article

 

[nobody 2,567]

1 hour ago, thegeneral said:

Because that is what happened. Why do you think she and others quit?

If you want random bulllshit off a Google search here’s the first thing that comes up regarding this:

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-an-editorial-column-and-an-article

 

Obviously she quit because she couldn't halfass her way through her job. Her boss wanted her to do a side by side analysis and she either couldn't do or wouldn't do it because she would actually have to bring facts into the discussion.

[nobody 2,567]

No matter what any link says, the purpose of an editorial isn't to allow this one lady to imprint her opinion on the masses without any sort of checks and balances.

 

[thegeneral 2,914]

4 minutes ago, nobody said:

Obviously she quit because she couldn't halfass her way through her job. Her boss wanted her to do a side by side analysis and she either couldn't do or wouldn't do it because she would actually have to bring facts into the discussion.

She wouldn’t do it. She made it clear. Did you all not read the article

[thegeneral 2,914]

1 minute ago, nobody said:

No matter what any link says, the purpose of an editorial isn't to allow this one lady to imprint her opinion on the masses without any sort of checks and balances.

 

The staff selects one person to do this endorsement piece. Why do you think other people have now quit?

 

 

[nobody 2,567]

3 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

She wouldn’t do it. She made it clear. Did you all not read the article

Exactly she wouldn't do what her boss and her job demanded.  Quitting was pretty appropriate.

It seems like you're trying to make some point.  Probably would be easier if you just said what point you think you're making.

[Horseman 2,369]

5 hours ago, Strike said:

Washington Post won't endorse Kamalatoe.  No word on any tantrums.......err......resignations yet.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/25/nx-s1-5165353/washington-post-presidential-endorsement-trump-harris

Editor at large Robert Kagan threw a fit and quit.  

[thegeneral 2,914]

6 minutes ago, nobody said:

Exactly she wouldn't do what her boss and her job demanded.  Quitting was pretty appropriate.

It seems like you're trying to make some point.  Probably would be easier if you just said what point you think you're making.

This is what I have said multiple times, that quitting was appropriate.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,840]

It's hilarious that these m************ think they have that moral high ground

They're not mad that the paper didn't endorse a candidate. They're mad because they didn't endorse the candidate they wanted.

This is how democracy is saved. Round up these partisan hacks and send them to the favorite socialist country of their choice. I choose North Korea for them. They'll fit right in!