Should newspapers endorse candidates?

[fredtoast]

They have been doing it for years, but I don't think it I a good idea.

Even if they keep a wall between the "news section" and the "editorial/opinion section" it still just feeds the idea that all news sources are biased.

[BmorePat87]

All news sources are biased. All humans are biased. Reporters do a great job at keeping their personal bias to a minimum. People have a problem with the truth, however, and will always attack reporters as being shills because of it.

That shouldn't stop editorial boards and op-eds from existing. If anything, they need more op-eds with opposing views and independent ombudsmen like figures to fact check them.

[HarleyDog]

It's not that tough to report news unbiased. In today's age, it has gotten ridiculously biased to where they are no longer reporting the truth, and in some cases make up so called facts to sway readers. Although it may have existed in my youth, it wasn't even close to what it is today.

[Benton]

No.

[HarleyDog]

(01-21-2020, 08:55 PM)Benton Wrote: No.

Do you think it's possible to write an unbiased article? 

[GMDino]

(01-21-2020, 09:04 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Do you think it's possible to write an unbiased article? 

Very difficult, IMHO. It was one of the exercises we did in a writing class in college. 

However I would add that sometimes the bias in in the mind of the reader.  Like how sports fans all think the announcers are for the other team no matter what they say about either team.

[Benton]

(01-21-2020, 09:04 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Do you think it's possible to write an unbiased article? 

Depends on the writer and the subject. 

I was a court reporter for a while. Sometimes I knew the cops on cases and we'd talk off the record. It was hard to write a story about someone being innocent when someone else you trusted told you why they weren't, but couldn't prove it. As a local sports reporter, if you want to stay employed you write with bias.

But if it's something you don't know about and have no emotion/stake in, then it's much easier.

[Belsnickel]

(01-21-2020, 07:46 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: It's not that tough to report news unbiased. In today's age, it has gotten ridiculously biased to where they are no longer reporting the truth, and in some cases make up so called facts to sway readers. Although it may have existed in my youth, it wasn't even close to what it is today.

Quite frankly, a lot of articles people see as biased aren't really all that biased. The biggest two problems I often see are inflammatory headlines and too much "both-sides-ism" that actually can make things seem less one-sided than they really are in an effort to not appear biased. The latter is an over-correction to often inaccurate claims of bias in the media.

[CJD]

I don't think they should, but then you could probably predict which party each newspaper would support anyway, so it's not like it's adding to the claims of biased news. So them endorsing candidates comes down to who they personally like among the party that they'll almost certainly endorse come election time.

That said, if you're going to endorse a candidate, at least have the common decency to endorse A candidate.

The New York Times endorsing both Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar (candidates with extremely different ideologies) is just silly. Who do you agree with ideologically? It can't be both of them. So pick one.

It just felt like pandering and identity politics to the extreme, especially with the whole "Bernie is sexist" thing occurring just a week prior (a claim that has appeared to blow up in Liz's face, rightfully so).

[Benton]

(01-22-2020, 08:34 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Quite frankly, a lot of articles people see as biased aren't really all that biased. The biggest two problems I often see are inflammatory headlines and too much "both-sides-ism" that actually can make things seem less one-sided than they really are in an effort to not appear biased. The latter is an over-correction to often inaccurate claims of bias in the media.

Every agency is different, but all that ones I worked at asked you to write a suggested hed. And 99% of the time, that 6-8 word capsule was horrifically modified. It's gotten ten fold worse with the internet where it's all about getting someone to click your link.

[hollodero]

No they shouldn't. It is weird.

[Belsnickel]

(01-22-2020, 09:01 AM)Benton Wrote: Every agency is different, but all that ones I worked at asked you to write a suggested hed. And 99% of the time, that 6-8 word capsule was horrifically modified. It's gotten ten fold worse with the internet where it's all about getting someone to click your link.

Oh, yeah, I'm aware. It has definitely gotten worse as of late and I know it is often the editorial staff making the call on the headline.

[Belsnickel]

I completely forgot about the OP. My answer is that I really don't care. It's not as relevant as it once was, so it doesn't much matter to me.

[Au165]

Bias = Doesn't agree with "My" thoughts on the subject.

We have lost the ability to look at topics critically and while taking a position understand and accept the flaws of the position and why others may see it differently. Empathy in general is gone and now it's about defending one's position as fiercely as possible with no real concern about the other side of the argument. This is politics today, but more so this is the over hyperbolic culture that requires everything to be the "Best ever" or the "Worst ever". Just read product reviews, they are a great example of this phenomenon and it's only getting worse.

[Benton]

(01-22-2020, 09:50 AM)Au165 Wrote: Bias = Doesn't agree with "My" thoughts on the subject.

We have lost the ability to look at topics critically and while taking a position understand and accept the flaws of the position and why others may see it differently. Empathy in general is gone and now it's about defending one's position as fiercely as possible with no real concern about the other side of the argument. This is politics today, but more so this is the over hyperbolic culture that requires everything to be the "Best ever" or the "Worst ever". Just read product reviews, they are a great example of this phenomenon and it's only getting worse.

As far as journalism, I don't disagree with the first line, but I do think the rest is off.

The majority of reporters I've worked with over two decades aren't concerned with exploding things. They're just doing their every day jobs. Sometimes those jobs blow up; sometimes they don't.

[*michaelsean*]

It doesn't bother me. But I don't know how much they actually think it through. I think they have their person and then develop arguments for them rather than the other way around.

[Au165]

(01-22-2020, 10:37 AM)Benton Wrote: As far as journalism, I don't disagree with the first line, but I do think the rest is off.

The majority of reporters I've worked with over two decades aren't concerned with exploding things. They're just doing their every day jobs. Sometimes those jobs blow up; sometimes they don't.

I wasn't referring to the journalists at all, I am referring to the people reading it. My point is whatever a journalist writes in today's world has already been agreed with or disagreed with by the headline before people read the article. An article could be perfectly balanced and people would call it biased because the eventual take is counter to their own opinion. It was a comment about the current climate of the population in general, not the journalists writing these things.

To the topic specifically, my point is it doesn't matter if a paper endorses a candidate or not. It is either immediately dismissed as "biased" or it is cheered because it agrees with their views. I see very few people interested in reading an endorsement and being open to changing their minds.

[fredtoast]

(01-21-2020, 07:11 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: That shouldn't stop editorial boards and op-eds from existing. If anything, they need more op-eds with opposing views and independent ombudsmen like figures to fact check them.

I agree with this.  But they if they cover opposing views then they should not pick sides and support one candidate over another.

[Dill]

(01-22-2020, 08:34 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Quite frankly, a lot of articles people see as biased aren't really all that biased. The biggest two problems I often see are inflammatory headlines and too much "both-sides-ism" that actually can make things seem less one-sided than they really are in an effort to not appear biased. The latter is an over-correction to often inaccurate claims of bias in the media.

Yes to all this, especially the bolded. 

If anything, it seems to me that too many journalists kow tow to "both sides" on many issues so they don't get called biased.

I would add one thing to this--I'm never surprised when good journalism is called "biased" precisely because it is good, i.e., because it includes viewpoints and facts that some readers don't want circulating in public. 

It was during the final years of the Vietnam war that the charge of "liberal bias" in the news began to get traction--and it was aimed precisely at those reporters and papers who strayed from reporting the war as Johnson and Nixon saw it. I.e., those that were telling the truth. 

Nixon's television producer, Roger Ailes, figured out a way to amplify that criticism, and to carry it into the 21st century with a permanent home. . . .

[Dill]

(01-22-2020, 01:10 PM)Au165 Wrote: An article could be perfectly balanced and people would call it biased because the eventual take is counter to their own opinion. It was a comment about the current climate of the population in general, not the journalists writing these things.

That is right.  That is why charges of "bias" have become a constant smoke now, saying little about the actual quality of journalism. If EVERYTHING is biased then an NYT article on the extra-legal efforts to oust Ambassador Yovanovitch is no more trustworthy than a Hannity commentary on Creepy Sleepy Joe Biden and the Ukraine cover up.