Friday, October 31, 2008

Defying Neuharth, Gannett Blog endorses!

Like rubbernecking past a car wreck, I can't resist octogenarian retired CEO Al Neuharth's weekly column, every Friday in USA Today.

No presidential election would be complete without Big Al reminding us -- again and again! -- how much he hates it when newspapers endorse candidates seeking election.

But this year, we're told, media bosses are finally taking cues from our favorite treehouse dwelling Floridian. "Newspapers making presidential editorial endorsements this year likely will be the lowest percentage ever,'' Neuharth opines, without any discernible evidence backing that up.

So, how does Gannett Blog's esteemed editorial board (that would be me) come down on the 2008 election? Why, we endorse -- voting!

Earlier: our paper-by-paper list of Gannett presidential endorsements

7 comments:

  1. Too bad he isn't fact-checked.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hope he writes one about government support (abatements, gants)for news organizations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oops. Grants and not gants.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jim wrote, "Why, we endorse -- voting!"

    It's sad to see this ill-considered advocacy of extreme positions on an otherwise clear-eyed blog. Since you've so unwisely opened the door to this over-the-top political foofaraw, allow me to rebut.

    Don't vote. It just encourages them.

    If God had meant for us to vote, he would have given us candidates.

    If voting mattered, they wouldn't let you do it.

    It doesn't matter who you vote for, a politician gets elected.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm with Al. Endorsements -- more than anything -- give fodder to those who think newspapers have a political agenda in their news copy. Since the art of editorial writing is entirely dead (detached argumentation with sound critical thinking), I think we could do away with the editorial page entirely. Fire the editorial boards and save millions.

    There's your 10 percent savings. Probably more.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Newspapers do have a political agenda in their copy. Lazy, gutless editors fail to stop this.

    I agree with part about editorials lacking critical thinking, though.

    Today's editorial: "(Fill in the blank) is bad. It shouldn't have happened. Here's why...................................................."

    Repeat daily.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have trouble telling the difference between an editorial and a news story these days. When did Gannett start allowing one-source, all- official-speak stories?

    ReplyDelete

Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.