Friday, November 05, 2004
LOL stupid editor
SFBG editor predicts Kerry victory. Okay, whatever.
But I have to say, on the eve of the election, I'm somewhat boggled by the way some of the newspapers in the Bay Area (and elsewhere in the country) have handled their presidential endorsements.
Almost all the major dailies around the Bay Area are supporting Kerry. The San Francisco Chronicle is strongly for Kerry. Oddly, the Los Angeles Times as of press time had endorsed nobody.
Even more oddly, the San Francisco Examiner endorsed both, or maybe neither, in a weird editorial pointing out the good and bad about each. That's beyond lame.
And then we have our ol' pals at the SF Weekly, who, in this critical election, are sitting it out entirely. Even today, with the incredible stakes, they won't take a stand. The only endorsement that managed to sneak into the Weekly was in Dan Savage's sex column. (He's backing Kerry.)
Well, you know, Mr. Redmond, the thing about real news organizations and alt-weeklies is that they have a bunch of people on their staffs who don't all march in lockstep. It helps give the paper some diversity of opinion. One of the consequences of this, though, is that sometimes it isn't really reasonable to give an "Opinion of the paper" when the staff has such diversity of thought. The Examiner went farther and figured "Gee, instead of just giving a one-sided endorsement, we'll write what we feel about the candidates." Oh, but that's lame, I see. Too informative. We need more foaming at the mouth from our news sources.
Bubbles are fun.
. . .
|
. . .
|
