Several weeks ago, the New York Times, the leading newspaper in the the U.S., announced its endorsement of Senator Clinton. OK. I let that one slide. They probably felt some sort of attachment to her since she's NY Senator.
But, please, guys...when you make a decision you need to stand by it. In the past week, the Times has printed an article blasting Clinton for her floundering campaign and just today, they have a piece at the top of their Web site championing a poll that found Obama as the candidate most likely to defeat McCain.
Waffle much? I am all about Obama (I think you've probably inferred as much by now), but I would expect the NY Times to at least stand by their decision to back up good ol' Hitlery. They are the mecca of all American news and as such they need to step it up and assume that role. I was even disappointed to see them put McCain under the microscope for "maybe, kinda sorta, probably" having relations with a female lobbyist. What happened to cold hard facts, my friends to the North?
I think this serves as an example of what can happen when news organizations endorse candidates too soon. Personally, I think that it's our responsibility not to endorse anyone. We're supposed to be the ultimate source of objective news, and endorsing is a clear attempt to sway readers.
But I could be wrong. Maybe by turning a burning lens on Clinton they are trying to prove how unbiased they can be even after they pump money into a presidential campaign. If so, then bravo. But then why endorse at all? Clinton only stands to lose and Obama gain. Aren't you defeating your own purpose???
Mentioned articles:
Somber Clinton soldiers on as the horizon darkens:
Polls show Obama is seen as more likely to beat McCain:
No comments:
Post a Comment