On January 24, 2008, the New York Times Editorial Board announced the two candidates that they are endorsing in this year’s Presidential Primaries.
On the Democratic side, the oft-liberal paper selected Senator Hillary Clinton as their choice to win the Democratic nomination for the general election this fall. In their published endorsement of Clinton, the editorial board called her “brilliant,” and seems to be of the mind that she is experienced in both foreign and domestic affairs that could lead this country out of this mess, which President George Bush has created, better than any of the other Democratic candidates. In the process of anointing Hillary, they patted Barack Obama on the back and dismissed John Edwards as basically a flip-flopping candidate.
The NYTimes choice for the Republican Party nomination was John McCain. In their endorsement of him, the say that he is the only “Republican who promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe.” However, the “endorsement” actually only focuses on McCain for the first three paragraphs, and then immediately goes in to Rudolph Giuliani bashing. Posing the question to themselves as to why they, a New York-based paper, are not backing Giuliani, they essentially say that he is not the man he used to be.
I don’t know if it’s just me, but I find it preposterous that these big producers of mass media find it necessary to fully endorse a candidate for the President of the United States. And don’t fall for the “it’s the editorial board endorsement, not the paper” excuse.
You and I know that if the major figureheads at the head of any major paper were adamantly against the endorsement of a particular candidate or any candidate at all, that it just wouldn’t happen. And if you want to sell your endorsement as being the opinion of just a few select people from part of your staff, then don’t put it on the front page of your newspaper; otherwise, I have to call a spade a spade.
Is this really okay though? This is an extremely liberal paper in democratic-based environment, yet it feels the need to tell the readers whom to endorse, and it even goes as far to use selective reasoning as to why to vote for their choice.
What ever happened to objectivity in media? Did Rupert Murdoch by the NYTimes, too?
The NYTimes (or their editorial board) should stick to just giving us the facts and diversity of opinions on the issues pertaining to the race, where the candidates stand, and why or why not one individual writer is in favor of a particular candidate. I don’t want to know what candidate a multi-million dollar company with a fiduciary responsibility to its owners wants to endorse. Just give me my news and opinion and save the vote tampering for Super Tuesday.