The New York Times doing a 'Both Sides' on their Democratic endorsement is a poetic sign of the times
This was an absolute embarrassment of political cowardice.Because this is 2020 America, the New York Times turned a traditional newspaper endorsement into a reality show and produced a controversial ending. Instead of following the singular logic of a candidat e endorsement (please note the singular form), the Times went full galaxy brain and decided to deliver us a golden ticket out of Trumpville, led by both Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren. The reason why this endorsement instantly became universally reviled is because it doesn’t make any sense ideologically, which then makes the whole thing look like one big production by the New York Times to generate publicity for the New York Times . If you’re going to give us a reality show, we need a winner. This is America. Saying you endorse two people, let alone two people whose policy agendas are in direct conflict with one another, is a cop-out. The choice comes off as a half-baked political calculation borne from what is supposed to be a substantive process. Historically—especially in lower information races—people look to newspaper endorsements for guidance on who they can trust on the important minutiae of governance. Anyone can turn on their TV and see pundits talking out of their punditholes, but us opinion writers are supposed to be different. We literally must spell our ideas out on the page. That deafening groan the Times heard in response to this was the sound of a further breach of trust between an institution and its readers. This dual endorsement comes off as a Cillizza-esque bit of punditry that runs from the fact that there can only be one winner in this fight (or two losers, but that’s a whole different column for a much later day). tired: nyt endorses biden inspired: nyt endorses warren & klobuchar at the same time — jordan (@JordanUhl) My prediction is the Times does a dual endorsement of Warren and Klobuchar called"The First Woman President" and everyone dies from making the jackoff motion too much — Dok (@Dok845) The fact that the Times earnestly went in the same direction that a few irony-poisoned shitposts did a couple hours before their big reveal is not a great sign for how this decision was made. If they style themselves to be the arbiters of the truth (which the NYT 's “this is an apple” advertisements revolving around The Truth imply), then this decision runs contrary to the substantive brand they wish to project. There is no coherent way to stitch together Klobuchar and Warren's platforms without repudiating what they both stand for. The rationale behind this is that the NYT does not want to choose between the competing ideologies in the Democratic Party. They're very clear about this. Both the radical and the realist models warrant serious consideration. If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it. That's why we're endorsing the most effective advocates for each approach. This entire endorsement wasn't all bad, just the parts people paid the most attention to. The fact that they videotaped these interviews is an encouraging sign of openness from one of the nation's most stubborn national newspapers (as demonstrated by the news side's , which implies to their readers that nothing is The Truth until the Times reports it), but the show placed almost as much focus on the people asking the questions as the ones answering them—which goes against the public service aspect of what a political endorsement implies. On the whole, this more open process was a good idea that advanced the cause of journalism—and while we can nitpick the various questions they asked, the totality of these candidate transcripts added real substance to this race and made all of us more informed—but the end result feels like galaxy-brained punditry which betrays the entire journalistic process they took to get to that point. The board's third choice was Cory Booker, but they barely debated him on the show and only broadcast one back-and-forth where they hammered him on his record and the “who has broken your heart?” question they have asked every candidate, which resulted in this powerful moment where Senator Booker spoke about how America has broken his heart. Before he dropped out of the 2020 race, Read more: Paste Magazine
New York Times Editorial Board Endorses Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth WarrenThe editorial board’s decision to back not one but two candidates is a significant break with convention, one meant to address the 'realist' and 'radical' models being presented to voters by the 2020 Democratic field, the editorial says. nytimesendorsement totally lost it.... How progressive of the NY Times to embrace rank choice voting! On a serious note, what a terrible cop-out. The lack of conviction and courage to choose a single candidate is beyond telling about the authenticity of the editorial board. How are you this amazingly bad at what you do?
The New York Times Endorses Elizabeth Warren And Amy KlobucharBREAKING: The New York Times editorial board endorsed both Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar in the race for the Democratic presidential primary. Warren is the best That will probably make no difference to final outcome. 🤣🤣
New York Times editorial board endorses Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for Democratic nominationThe New York Times editorial board on Sunday endorsed Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, a potentially meaningful boost for the two female senators left in the race with less than a month before the Iowa caucuses. 🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️🤦🏼♂️ LOOOOOOL
The New York Times’ Made-for-TV Endorsement Missed the Mark (Column)At some point during the New York Times’s special endorsement episode of its branded series “The Weekly,” the paper’s editorial board muses on the manner in which Donald Tru… Kansas4Pete They totally missed the mark PeteForPresident PeteButtigieg Totally embarrassing.
New York Times Endorses Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar In FX/Hulu Series RevealThe New York Times broke with convention and endorsed two candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination — Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. The editorial board’s choice was re… The kiss of death has been bestowed. Good night and good luck. Warren - I can get behind that. Klobucher - 🤢🤢
New York Times ed board endorses Warren, KlobucharThe New York Times’ editorial board endorsed two female senators for the Democratic nomination for president Sunday: Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar 3 for 3 Fake News Times But not Tulsi Gabbard.