Largest Newspaper in the State endorses Justin Amash! Momentum is building...

[biles1234]

Justin just got endorsed in an editorial by the largest newspaper in the state, the Detroit Free Press, 16 days before the primary.

http://www.freep.com/article/20100718/OPINION01/7180429/Michigans-U.S.-House-districts


3rd District

(Most of Kent and all of Barry and Ionia Counties)

Even before U.S. Rep. Vern Ehlers, R-Grand Rapids, announced his retirement, state Rep. JUSTIN AMASH, R-Kentwood, was running to challenge him. Although just 30, the energetic Amash, a Libertarian-leaning conservative, has in one term in Lansing shown himself to be not just ambitious but an innovative and conscientious lawmaker with a solid grasp of the political process.

An attorney, Amash refuses to vote for any bill he has not read. He will make the best case for Republicans this fall to hold the seat occupied for a quarter century by former President Gerald Ford.

[dr. hfn]

I still think it's ridiculous newspapers endorse people...

[silus]

I still think it's ridiculous newspapers endorse people...
This.

[low preference guy]

I still think it's ridiculous newspapers endorse people...

Not really. If you had a big newspaper wouldn't you want to try to influence people to vote for the guy you want to win? Newspapers have been endorsing since the very beginning of the American Republic.

[FrankRep]

I still think it's ridiculous newspapers endorse people...
Newspapers are businesses too. Not ridiculous.

[silus]

Newspapers have been endorsing since the very beginning of the American Republic.
The Federal Reserve has existed for almost 100 years... Is that a valid justification for its existence? You can't justify things on the basis of time alone. :shrug


Newspapers are businesses too. Not ridiculous.
Ask yourself, what are they in the business of? Is it starting to look ridiculous now?

[low preference guy]

The Federal Reserve has existed for almost 100 years... Is that a valid justification for its existence? You can't justify things on the basis of time alone. :shrug

That wasn't the justification, but context meant to convey that it's an old practice not likely to change. The justification was also in my post but you decided to not quote that part.

[nayjevin]

Justin just got endorsed in an editorial

that is awesome.

[silus]

That wasn't the justification, but context meant to convey that it's an old practice not likely to change. The justification was also in my post but you decided to not quote that part.
If you kept reading it was addressed with the other quote. But i'll repeat it...



If you had a big newspaper wouldn't you want to try to influence people to vote for the guy you want to win?
What is the purpose, the goal of a newspaper or any news organization?

Is the idea of newspapers endorsing candidates starting to look ridiculous now?!?

[low preference guy]

What is the purpose, the goal of a newspaper or any news organization?


It depends on the purpose of the owner. IF I had a lot of money, I would buy the NY Times for one reason and one reason only: to gradually change its reporting to have a libertarian bent and influence public opinion. So my purpose of having a newspaper would be to shape public opinion.


Is the idea of newspapers endorsing candidates starting to look ridiculous now?!?

No. If I had a newspaper with any sway, I might endorse Ron Paul. But it's more influential to try to persuade them day to day, so it might be better to not endorse him directly, but I wouldn't consider it ridiculous.

[specsaregood]

Newspapers are businesses too. Not ridiculous.

Most business I know of don't endorse and most try to remain completely neutral in politics due to fear of alienating customers.

Besides, they won't be businesses much longer, they'll all be non-profits. :)

[FrankRep]

Most business I know of don't endorse and most try to remain completely neutral in politics due to fear of alienating customers.

Besides, they won't be businesses much longer, they'll all be non-profits. :)
That's just good business sense. Businesses are allowed to be stupid, piss off their customers, and go bankrupt.

[silus]

It depends on the purpose of the owner. IF I had a lot of money, I would buy the NY Times for one reason and one reason only: to gradually change its reporting to have a libertarian bent and influence public opinion. So my purpose of having a newspaper would be to shape public opinion.



No. If I had a newspaper with any sway, I might endorse Ron Paul. But it's more influential to try to persuade them day to day, so it might be better to not endorse him directly, but I wouldn't consider it ridiculous.
Not to pretend i'm on some moral highground, but if I had a newspaper I would think my goal would be to report news as fair and neutral as possible. :shrug

To take it a step further, I don't even think its a choice as you're making it out to be. Thats just what journalism is. If you see it more as a means to influence the public to your interests, than we're not really in conflict. You're talking about one thing, i'm talking about another. The problem begins when you try to pass one off as the other. Thats the issue with newspapers endorsing candidates. Its a contradiction.

[specsaregood]

That's just good business sense. Businesses are allowed to be stupid, piss off their customers, and go bankrupt.

Right purposefully alienating many potential customers is a bit "ridiculous" which is what the person your replied to stated. :) I don't believe he said they don't have a right to be ridiculous.

[low preference guy]

Thats the issue with newspapers endorsing candidates. Its a contradiction.

I don't think so. Newspapers that want to pass only news would be seen as boring. No opinions? Are you kidding me? So offering opinions is part of a successful newspaper.

But let's suppose newspapers should ONLY report news. It can still be used to influence opinion, because you can't put in all the news in the world, and your selection of news in itself influences the public.

For example, when Ben Bernanke makes a wrong prediction (often) I would publish it immediately. When Obama breaks a campaign promise, I'd report it. When Zimbawbe goes through hyperinflation, I'd also report it, and highlight the similarities with out monetary system.

But I only reported news, and I still was able to influence opinion by putting Bernanke and Obama in a bad light. And again, since it isn't possible to report all the news of the world, every newspaper influences public opinion by the selection of the news they choose to report. (If you're unhappy with that, should they throw a coin to decide which news to report?)

[brenden.b]

Hey! Who cares? The goodness is that Justin Amash, the Ron Paul of the North, is gaining momentum by the day. This endorsement is just another showing of the growing strength of our movement.

[silus]

I don't think so. Newspaper that wants to pass only news would be seen as boring. No opinions? Are you kidding me? So offering opinions is part of a successful newspaper.

The issue is a newspaper endorsing a candidate, not individual opinions being allowed in a newspaper. I don't understand why you find it difficult to evaluate candidates without publicly endorsing them. Your credibility suffers in your evaluations when you are making endorsements. Which is why today entire news outlets are dismissed outright because of the obvious corruption in proper journalism practice.


But let's suppose newspapers should ONLY report news. It can still be used to influence opinion, because you can't put in all the news in the world, and your selection of news in itself influences the public.

For example, when Ben Bernanke makes a wrong prediction (often) I would publish it immediately. When Obama breaks a campaign promise, I'd report it. When Zimbawbe goes through hyperinflation, I'd also report it, and highlight the similarities with out monetary system.

But I only reported news, and I still was able to influence opinion by putting Bernanke and Obama in a bad light. And again, since it isn't possible to report all the news of the world, every newspaper influence public opinion by the selection of the news they choose to report. (If you're unhappy with that, should they thrown a coin or choose randomly?)
You didn't understand my last post. I'm not talking about "eliminating influence." The goal is to remain as neutral and unbiased as possible. Which really doen't matter considering your position is on the opposite side of the spectrum, having a newspaper for the purpose of "shaping public opinion" to align with your interests. So I don't see what you are trying to establish.

[low preference guy]

The issue is a newspaper endorsing a candidate, not individual opinions being allowed (which I didn't even say).

Ok, let me try to understand your point. It's OK to influence people with individual opinions of the writers, but not with an "Editorial Opinion", which is basically the opinion of the owner?

ETA: Or is it OK to try to influence with the selection of news, but not OK to influence with explicit opinions, whether they are from individuals or from the editorial board?

[silus]

Ok, let me try to understand your point. It's OK to influence people with individual opinions of the writers, but not with an "Editorial Opinion", which is basically the opinion of the owner?
You're complicating a simple point. My point is that newspapers shouldn't get in the practice of endorsing candidates. My point was that a media outlet should strive to remain as neutral and unbiased as possible, whether that is in news reporting, or evaluating an topic.

[low preference guy]

You're complicating a simple point. My point is that newspapers shouldn't get in the practice of endorsing candidates. My point was that a media outlet should strive to remain as neutral and unbiased as possible, whether that is in news reporting, or evaluating an topic.

OK. I see. My point is that your ideal newspaper would be very boring to read and probably would go bankrupt.

ETA: Also, let me add that saying that "a media outlet should strive to remain as neutral and unbiased as possible" basically means that the newspapers should flip coins to decide which news to report. Otherwise they are biased in the way the choose the news they report, because their selection of news influences by who is cast on a negative and positive light by having their positive or negative actions being reported.

[silus]

I still don't see why you are arguing the details of my position when you are on the complete opposite side of the spectrum, in that its okay for news outlets to focus on shaping public opinion. Maybe you should try defending that, because it sounds pretty damn insane to me. And its why Ron Paul had such a tough time, and is why his supporters would flood these organizations with email and phone calls. There is integrity, principles in news reporting and you endorse corruption.

[specsaregood]

You're complicating a simple point. My point is that newspapers shouldn't get in the practice of endorsing candidates. My point was that a media outlet should strive to remain as neutral and unbiased as possible, whether that is in news reporting, or evaluating an topic.

You are thinking soooo 20th century. Welcome to the 21st century where media outlets are just blatant propaganda wings of various factions of the political process.

[libertybrewcity]

You're complicating a simple point. My point is that newspapers shouldn't get in the practice of endorsing candidates. My point was that a media outlet should strive to remain as neutral and unbiased as possible, whether that is in news reporting, or evaluating an topic.

too late for that. it has become the norm in modern day politics and the norm it will stay until people start canceling their subscriptions.

[silus]

You are thinking soooo 20th century. Welcome to the 21st century where media outlets are just blatant propaganda wings of various factions of the political process.
Standards do not change because people and societies do. We are all here because of one man who I could also say is soo 19th century.

[Dark Aerow]

Ask yourself, what are they in the business of?
They are in business to get as many readers as possible. To that end, some readers like to hear opinions, some don't. The benefit of the endorsing a candidate in the paper is entirely dependent upon their target market, factual content, section of the paper, etc...

Not all media outlets endorse candidates, some recognize that a certain number of people don't care or don't want their news source to display that type of bias. Others would rather see that sort of bias was displayed openly to give perspective on the articles, or they want to see their endorsements for one of several reasons that I can't pretend to know.


Ask yourself, why is their an increasing number of people using the Internet to get the news?



Hey! Who cares? The goodness is that Justin Amash, the Ron Paul of the North, is gaining momentum by the day. This endorsement is just another showing of the growing strength of our movement.
Indeed.

The next few weeks are gonna be very interesting.

[lx43]

He's raised roughly $358 K http://amashforcongress.com I hope he wins.

[low preference guy]

I still don't see why you are arguing the details of my position when you are on the complete opposite side of the spectrum, in that its okay for news outlets to focus on shaping public opinion. Maybe you should try defending that, because it sounds pretty damn insane to me. And its why Ron Paul had such a tough time, and is why his supporters would flood these organizations with email and phone calls. There is integrity, principles in news reporting and you endorse corruption.

I think I answered this in post #20. You might have not seen it because you posted very soon afterwards. My main point was that newspapers according to your ideal would go bankrupt quickly.

Also, newspapers were biased in the 19th century, and Thomas Jefferson was elected. So blaming the non-election of Ron Paul for newspapers being biased is a mistake.

[specsaregood]

Standards do not change because people and societies do. We are all here because of one man who I could also say is soo 19th century.

Note: I wasn't saying I like it, just saying how it is. Evidently people like their news flavored with a healthy dose of bias.

[low preference guy]

Note: I wasn't saying I like it, just saying how it is. Evidently people like their news flavored with a healthy dose of bias.

Correct. That's why I tend to read the Drudge Report and RPF (but also the Huff Post to know what they are up to).

RPF is also like a newspaper, because there are a lot of news that are posted here, but the selection has a strong libertarian bent.

[silus]

I think I answered this in post #20. You might have not seen it because you posted very soon afterwards. My main point was that newspapers according to your ideal would go bankrupt quickly.

Also, newspapers were biased in the 19th century, and Thomas Jefferson was elected. So blaming the non-election of Ron Paul for newspapers being biased is a mistake.
Not sure what Thomas Jefferson has to do with anything, and i'm pretty certain I never attributed Ron Paul not getting elected to the media. :rolleyes:

The issue is that people understand the principles of journalism, and it does not make sense to support the corruption of those principles for the sake of supporting your interests.

[low preference guy]

Not sure what Thomas Jefferson has to do with anything, and i'm pretty certain I never attributed Ron Paul not getting elected to the media. :rolleyes:

So what was the point of this?


And its why Ron Paul had such a tough time, and is why his supporters would flood these organizations with email and phone calls.

[silus]

Are you serious? I'm stating an obvious fact, that Ron Paul had a hard time getting a fair handshake in the news media. Thats a far cry from stating, "Ron Paul didn't win because of the media." :confused

[specsaregood]

Are you serious? I'm stating an obvious fact, that Ron Paul had a hard time getting a fair handshake in the news media. Thats a far cry from stating, "Ron Paul didn't win because of the media." :confused

IIRC, there was a professor from a prominent college (columbia maybe?) that was aghast at it and I believe said he was going to design a whole class about media bias and censorship because of it. I can't remember his name though, maybe (levinson?)

Edit, yup Paul Levinson, was wrong about which university though.
http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2007/08/more-abc-news-distortion-to-be-included.html


More ABC News Distortion To Be Included in My Curriculum

More evidence of ABC's deliberate misreporting of the impact of Ron Paul's Presidential candidacy. Take a look at the following video - it's on several sites on the Web, and Ron Paul supporter Andrew Pankin called it my attention this morning:

The "story" portrayed in this video clip is that Ron Paul supporters at Monday's Iowa debate were many in contrast to Mitt Romney's, who were represented by a few signs and even fewer supporters, but ABC's "Photos: Iowa GOP Debate Recap" shows lots of cheering Romney supporters, in contrast to a lone Ron Paul supporter, with a placard and an umbrella.

Let's give Mitt Romney supporters the benefit of the doubt, to see how clearly ABC News distorted its Ron Paul coverage. Let's assume Romney did have a lot of cheering supporters, who did not make it into the clip of the cheering Ron Paul supporters (not surprising, since Ron Paul's supporters made the clip).

But whatever the number of Mitt Romney supporters, why on Earth did ABC choose to show just one Ron Paul supporter? What purpose could that serve, other than giving the American people the wrong impression?

Crowd coverage at political rallies is always an activity bristling with pitfalls - even the most honest news coverage could point a camera in a direction that misses something important. But there is no way the photo of the single Ron Paul supporter could have been an accidental oversight of the cheering crowd.

We learned a lot of things in the twentieth-century about totalitarian societies, and what makes them possible. George Orwell got it sadly right in his 1984 novel, in which the dictatorial party in power controls the people by literally removing disliked officials from photos in newspapers.

I was not in Iowa on Monday, and thus can not offer any direct testimony as to the size of the crowds. But if ABC did what it looks like it did in the video - if it deliberately gave the impression that Ron Paul had just one supporter when in fact he had many - then ABC should know that it has acted in the tradition of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, in the dangerous deceptive manner of totalitarian societies not democracies.

I will have another example of media misconduct to teach to my class this Fall, which I would be happier not having at all. For ABC News, this represents the third strike: removing comments of Ron Paul supporters, misreporting the results of its own poll, making Ron Paul's supporters look fewer than they really were. When will it end?

Paul Levinson, PhD
Professor and Chair
Department of Communication and Media Studies
Fordham University

[low preference guy]

Are you serious? I'm stating an obvious fact, that Ron Paul had a hard time getting a fair handshake in the news media. Thats a far cry from stating, "Ron Paul didn't win because of the media." :confused

I guess I just don't see then what's the relevance to the discussion at that point.

[Michigan11]

Interesting debate here... At least this endorsement is for our side for a change. It's giving him great exposure to a wider audience that will pick up on this.

I do however wish our candidates would be called Constitutional/Conservatives rather than Libertarian/Leaning Conservatives, but it's all good either way. I'm not going to complain, but the same thing was happening to Rand as well. But it's worked out in the end. And I have nothing against the term "Libertarian", it's just that "Constitutional" seems more in line with our candidates....