You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
The Dallas Morning News Is Paying Dearly For Endorsing Hillary Clinton
2016-09-22
[DAILYCALLER] The Dallas Morning News is paying a steep price for endorsing Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton
... sometimes described as America's Blond Eminence and at other times as Mrs. Bill, never as Another Hamilton Fish ...
, in the form of canceled subscriptions and loud protests.


Would You Cancel A Newspaper Subscription If Its Editorial Board Endorsed Hillary Clinton?
Yes 97%
No 3%
The endorsement broke a 75-year streak in the paper’s history of endorsing Republicans, and generated a lot of reader pushback in the form of angry comments and vows to unsubscribe from the paper. Although Dallas is relatively liberal, the state hasn’t gone Democrat in a presidential election in 40 years.

"Certainly we’ve paid a price for our presidential recommendation," Dallas Morning News editor Mike Wilson said in an email to Poynter. Wilson acknowledged some of that price came in dropped subscriptions, although he declined to reveal to Poynter exactly how many.

"But then, we write our editorials based on principle, and sometimes principle comes at a cost," Wilson continued in the email. "I’ve had a lot of conversations with readers lately, and I respect their views and their right to disagree with us. The most important thing to us is that they vote, even if it’s not for our favorite candidate, because democracy doesn’t work if people don’t vote."

The editorial acknowledges what the paper calls Clinton’s "warts," but said her Republican opponent Donald Trump is an unacceptable choice for president.

"Trump’s values are hostile to conservatism," the editorial board wrote. "He plays on fear -- exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny -- to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best."
Posted by:Fred

#14  8 Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

That's true. And any of you who live in locales where the current "R"'s say that they can't support Trump should be shown the door the moment your voters have the opportunity. They are *bad* people who aren't standing up for anything other than graft.
Posted by: Crusader   2016-09-22 23:11  

#13  The way I understand it the 'non-bias' part of journalism was originally specific to free-lance services that had to make things neutral to sell stories to all papers. The papers themselves never felt constrained. Well they still don't but the journalists themselves still play that card as if they've ever been strictly neutral.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2016-09-22 18:05  

#12  Endorsing candidates is not their business

Actually, it was to begin with. Check some of the names of papers back in the early 19C. They were clearly self identified as party organs. It was only when they started getting a paying revenue stream from advertizing which replaced the party subsidizes that they decided to put the mask of 'propriety' to keep the game going.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2016-09-22 15:59  

#11  It was common back in the day for cities of even modest size to have two daily papers, one for each end of the political spectrum.
Posted by: SteveS   2016-09-22 15:55  

#10  Not the American Way EC, hard to believe, but papers used to be even more partisan.
Posted by: Shipman   2016-09-22 15:29  

#9  Newspapers should report news, analyze them, put them into context.

Endorsing candidates is not their business. As a wise senior German publisher once said: Newspapers should not join a cause, not even a good one.
Posted by: European Conservative   2016-09-22 14:38  

#8  Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2016-09-22 14:27  

#7  A non-endorsement of any candidate would not have that big of an impact in Texas where Trump will win anyway.

Not endorsing Trump is one thing, and perhaps a principled case can be made. But endorsing Clinton who is definitely "an unacceptable choice for president"? That is completely unprincipled. This jackass editor shows why the press has lost all respect of any principled and rational person.
Posted by: Snakes Schwarzeneggar7423   2016-09-22 11:27  

#6  Readers probably say, this newspaper is crap, why waste my money on drek? (I'm nearly there with my newspaper too). Same way with the NFL, viewership has suffered due to the flag protests by Kaepernick and other NFL players. You as an NFL player have a right to protest but don't expect others to feel warm and fuzzy about your protest; they will get you where it hurts--your money.
Posted by: JohnQC   2016-09-22 10:58  

#5  "Trump’s values are hostile to conservatism,"

Map is not a territory. Ideology is a map of the real world.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2016-09-22 08:35  

#4  "Trump’s values are hostile to conservatism," the editorial board wrote. "He plays on fear -- exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny -- to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best."

Written by someone who lives in a gated community or rich suburb, making a 6 figure salary. The rest of the population has to live in the real world, with real threats. It's never your children on the front lines.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2016-09-22 08:04  

#3  San Diego Union Tribune was sold to the Chicago Tribune TRONC syndicate - same thing. Endorsed Hildabeest. F THEM
Posted by: Frank G   2016-09-22 07:16  

#2  Just the Americans, Besoeker?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2016-09-22 05:11  

#1  The Dallas Morning News Is Paying Dearly For Endorsing Hillary Clinton

But it is nothing compared to the price the American people will pay if she is elected.
Posted by: Besoeker   2016-09-22 04:16  

00:00