• PorradaVFR@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 month ago

    Media is supposed to be objective, endorsements are a long standing tradition here in the US, ostensibly and hopefully based on a non-partisan analysis of the candidates’ policy positions, record and overall character.

    Having the choice between an aspiring fascist dictator and convicted felon versus the sitting Vice-President and the decision being “neither” is indeed shocking and disappointing. The Post used to have massive credibility, especially on politics. This is an embarrassment.

    • Trail@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      I agree with what you say. However, given that indeed journalists should in theory be objective, I would expect that newspapers would give the analysis of policies, positions, etc of the candidates. I would not, however, expect the newspapers to connect the dots and draw the conclusions for the audience, but rather the audience should do it for themselves. This is why the whole endorsement things seems a bit strange to me.

      • PorradaVFR@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        The intent of an endorsement is “on this basis we recommend candidate X” - it’s an argument not a dictate but I understand your point.