Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on LA Times Endorses Obama

1

Most notable to me of late has been the Clinton campaign's inability to do anything to counter the plethora of momentum-building news favoring the Obama campaign.

Posted by Trey | February 1, 2008 2:07 PM
2

It seems funny to me that a newspaper, which is in theory supposed to be a bastion of objective reporting, is allowed to endorse a candidate. The NYT has endorsed Hillary despite spending the last few years defending the integrity of objectivity in the wake of the Judith/Plame scandal.
The fact that a media outlet can, on one hand, claim to be objective in their reporting and simultaneously endorse a particular candidate is rather schizo is all I'm sayin'.

Posted by city kitty | February 1, 2008 2:20 PM
3

Point taken, city kitty, but editorial-page endorsements by newspapers that also do objective reporting is a phenomenon that dates back to the invention of moveable type.

Someone please cue the predictable blogosphere discussion about "the MSM" and "objectivity."

Posted by Trey | February 1, 2008 2:33 PM
4

The NY Post also endorsed Sen Obama today.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 1, 2008 2:47 PM
5

Yeah editorials are weird that way. They really have to create a wall, and that always seems a little dicey.

I'm glad they exist, though. At least theoretically it means a candidate is getting press that [s]he hasn't paid for, and hopefully it's thoughtful, detailed, and reasoned, unlike a lot of ads. I do think people who write editorials put a lot of care into what they say, and at least factcheck it. You're not going to see any Clinton endorsements that claim that Obama's "present" votes on abortion legislation mean he's anti-choice, for example.

Posted by Phoebe | February 1, 2008 5:57 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).