Those liberal Bolshieviks at The financial times endorse Kerry, call Bush a radical http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20041025/wl_uk_afp/us_vote_britain_media_041025151428 ------------ New York Times Endorses Kerry http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=16&u=/nm/campaign_endorsements_dc "Kerry leads Bush in newspaper endorsements 42 to 22, the journal said on its Web site." --------- New Yorker magazine breaks with tradition, endorses Kerry http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._alt_afp/us_vote_media_newyorker_041025164606
"A President Kerry would probably revert to the fiscal responsibility of the Clinton years... Coupled with the need for international economic policy cooperation... this could be a recipe for success," judged the financial daily. I'm glad I'm not the only one who misses that old Conservative. He looks and sounds really good - nice to see him out there. The Economist, on the other hand, I see them endorsing Bush, judging by the Election Special they put out a couple of weeks ago.
Kerry leads Bush in newspaper endorsements 42 to 22, the journal said on its Web site." what shocks me about this is that there are 22 news paper editors out there that obviously were not paying attention in journalisim class
Lyndon Johnson and Bill Clinton ('92) are the only Democratic candidates who received more newspaper endorsements than their Republican opponents since 1940. Shame when facts get in the way of a good knee jerk? Huh? But then again Republicans are more about faith than facts, no?
Can you parse that without using rhetorical questions? I have no idea what you mean. Are you saying that it shows that Bush/Cheney is so bad that it led to another exception?
There isn't a single business in this world except either a Republican or a Soviet government that could spend money, go so far into debt and still survive. It wouldn't survive on Wall Street.
Yup. They live in a faith-based community while most everyone else in the world (except, ironically, radical Muslims) lives in a reality-based community.
Wait---wait--!!! The NEW YORK TIMES is supporting Kerry?!?!?!?!?!?! ABSOLUTELY SHOCKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The truth-deprived kneejerk reaction in question is Manu1959's: In the sentence highlighted by Samarkand, Manu1959 invoked the "liberal media" canard and implied that journalists are indoctrinated to lean left in Journalism class. Samarkand pointed out that history indicates otherwise, citing as evidence the fact that Democratic candidates who get a majority of newspaper endorsements have been a distinct minority since 1940. That's how I read it, anyway.
That's what I got too. If I'm reading it right, newspapers have, as a group, endorsed Dewey over FDR and Truman, Nixon over JFK, Ford over Carter, Dole over Clinton and GW Bush over Gore. Yeah, some liberal media.
Exactly the point of my thread title. Most of the mainstream media seem to understand that the old labels "radical", "conservative", etc. when applied to the Reeps and the Dems have changed. Unlike most Americans, the media have looked beyond the labels to what the candidates have actually done and are likely to do. The media want a conservative President and understand that Kerry is the real conservative here while Bush is a whacked out radical. The fact that he is a right-wing radical instead of a left-wing radical makes little difference. The folks who control most mass media outlets want a centrist conservative and not a devisive extremist, especially in these troubled times so they support Kerry. The Kool-aid Brigade will, of course, bleat about "the liberal media" but they're just blinded by obsolete labels and aren't sharp enough to have caught the changes happening in the American political scene over the past 30 years.