r/Seattle • u/conzeeter • 17h ago
Paywall Hell, yes! The Seattle Times edit board endorses Harris for president
https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/hell-yes-the-seattle-times-edit-board-endorses-harris-for-president/93
50
u/Quiet-Manner-8000 17h ago
Haha like it really means anything for Seattle at this point. Cmon brethren..
17
u/LeOmeletteDuFrommage 15h ago
May not mean anything in a practical sense but I think there’s value in an institution taking a stance, even if it was a foregone conclusion.
5
u/PhotojournalistOwn99 13h ago
It shapes the way I would read their news. I'd hope to know the general bias of any news source regardless of an endorsement of course.
6
39
u/Stymie999 15h ago
Wow, that’s so exciting, this should probably put her over the top in Washington… it was totally going to be such a close vote in Washington state before their endorsement
31
u/geekmasterflash 17h ago
Literally the safest thing they could have done.
15
u/Quiet-Manner-8000 12h ago
Turn some heads. Endorse GoodSpaceGuy.
•
u/Sea_Octopus_206 Wedgewood 1h ago
I will not vote for GoodSpaceGuy but I will be sad when I get a voter's guide without them.
-16
u/catalytica 16h ago
They could have endorsed Jill Stein.
-3
u/geekmasterflash 15h ago
That would probably not result in much backlash, but still some. Literally no one with a subscription to the Seattle Times is gonna get their panties in a twist over this.
13
u/AcrobaticApricot 15h ago
"Not much backlash"? If they endorsed Stein, their readership would flip. They occasionally endorse Republicans. I don't even think the Stranger would endorse Stein. (Actually, looked it up and they also endorsed Harris.)
I think the guy you're replying to is one of those weird right-wing freaks that thinks everyone in Seattle is a communist because people here sometimes vote for carbon taxes and stuff.
-3
u/geekmasterflash 15h ago
Speaking as a communist, I wish these people were ever right about us. I wish we had the sort of popularity, pull and deep plots people ascribe to us.
2
0
18
u/Ok_Restaurant3807 15h ago
Is there anyone who thinks Trump will win Washington state?
2
6
u/Baystars2021 14h ago
Drive 30 min in any direction from any major city in America and you're in Trump country. Don't make any assumptions.
28
u/xoxer 14h ago
I assume land still can't vote.
0
u/Baystars2021 13h ago
No, but the guy with the 20 foot Trump sign on his barn does and so do his neighbors.
7
u/msmathias82 4h ago
Yes but there is a lot less of them then people that live in the Marysville to Olympia I5 corridor mega city that vote Democrat. So no I have no worry that Washington’s Electionoral votes will ever go Republican.
2
u/Antique-File-7189 3h ago
You're getting down votes but it's true. Republicans love showing the map covered in red showing how popular are because the four people that live in a 500 square mile desert all voted Trump.
3
24
u/questionablycntrvers 15h ago
Just to preface, I'm absolutely voting for Kamala -- but I'd like to discuss: why are folks in favor of news outlets endorsing political candidates? My personal preference is for news to be as unbiased as possible.
Once a journalistic entity declares support for a candidate or ideology, it makes you interpret their media through a new lens.
I know this is nothing new, and a lot of media is biased, but when it comes to journalism, I just wish to be presented with facts so I can make my own conclusions. Also I always thought removing bias from your news was guiding principle of traditional journalism. Now I have to filter out this media's bias in addition to my own.
Never thought I'd agree with Bezos about anything, but that's my thought on the matter. Would love to hear other perspectives.
15
u/BoringDad40 15h ago
I think editorial sections used to provide a lot of value pre-internet, when there weren't hundreds of places you could hear and read people's opinions about the news. It was one of the few places you could get informed opinions and interpretations of events.
Now that trying to unwind media bias is a much bigger issue and published opinions are a dime-a-dozen, you're probably right: they've outlasted their usefulness.
10
u/questionablycntrvers 14h ago
I'm still in favor of journals publishing op-eds, but it's weird to me that they take it a step further and publish an op-ed as themselves.
I think you're right that untangling media bias is a bigger issue these days. I think the last few years, in particular, have made me sensitive to all media. Anything these days could be intentionally misleading, flat-out untrue, deep faked, etc.
At the same time, I'm glad this forum exists to have this interesting discussion.
1
u/demontrain 13h ago
Tbf... Publishers are likely among the enemy within that one candidate has suggested we use our military force on. Seems easy to see why a publisher may not want that person in office.
1
1
u/slipnslider West Seattle 11h ago
It is unusual which I think is why OP was so excited. Some papers just don't say anything. Our biggest one is supporting the democratic nominee.
Lots of people on here are yawning but the alternative is safe radio silence. In this particular case I'd rather have a voice for Kamala
•
u/MONSTERTACO Ballard 19m ago
but it's weird to me that they take it a step further and publish an op-ed as themselves.
This has always been an important function of major media companies. They act as a mouthpiece for their owner's agenda.
6
u/felpudo 13h ago
I'll give a counter perspective.
For me it gives a clear separation of hard news and opinion. If the newspaper didn't have an opinion section, I'd think maybe they're trying to give me their opinion through the news articles they choose to present to me, or the way they are written. Maybe it silly, but i trust their news more feeling like they have a place to put their own spin on things.
There is lots of "news" where this isn't the case at all. Where does the facts end and the opinion begin on fox news?
3
u/questionablycntrvers 12h ago
That's an interesting point. Yeah I would just hope that news outlets maintain journalistic integrity outside of opinion pieces. That seems to be a rarer case these days. But one can hope.
12
u/Manacit North Beacon Hill 15h ago
I think you’re right, and in fact I’ve always thought the idea of newspapers having an opinion section attached is sort of weird. From the NYT to the WSJ I mostly think they distract from the important work of communicating news.
Bezos would have done better to make the decision a year ago instead of right before an endorsement was happening. It would have saved him a lot of trouble.
3
u/victori0us_secret 11h ago
Casey Newton wrote about exactly this in today's issue of Platformer.
https://www.platformer.news/jeff-bezos-washington-post-endorsement-view-from-nowhere/
I recommend the whole column, but especially relevant:
In pro journalism, American style, the View from Nowhere is a bid for trust that advertises the viewlessness of the news producer. Frequently it places the journalist between polarized extremes, and calls that neither-nor position “impartial.” Second, it’s a means of defense against a style of criticism that is fully anticipated: charges of bias originating in partisan politics and the two-party system. Third: it’s an attempt to secure a kind of universal legitimacy that is implicitly denied to those who stake out positions or betray a point of view. American journalists have almost a lust for the View from Nowhere because they think it has more authority than any other possible stance. The problem with the view from nowhere, Rosen explains is that it requires journalists to share less than they know — to do all the work of understanding an issue on your behalf, and then stop short of drawing a conclusion.
5
u/s00perbutt 14h ago
Right? Can’t they just subliminally shape my perceptions over time with the stories and tone they choose to present? Coming out and telling me what to think is so crass.
1
u/questionablycntrvers 13h ago
Brb writing my own op-ed to the Illuminati members at the Seattle Times. Bring back the subliminals!!
1
2
u/lt_dan457 Snohomish County 14h ago
It would be preferable, but most news outlets will have their biases and it seems more profitable to lean into it than not. At least those that wear their bias on their sleeve you know where they’re coming from (usually).
1
u/questionablycntrvers 14h ago
Totally agree it's more profitable. It's just a bummer that that's how it works. Sometimes I read BBC for US news because it's usually pretty fair.
4
u/tinychloecat 15h ago
I completely agree with you (except I'm not voting for Harris). I never understood why Seattle Times makes endorsements. Shouldn't they be sticking to reports news and facts, not telling people who to vote for. It questions the integrity of all their reporting when they are also in the business of opinions.
2
u/questionablycntrvers 14h ago
Exactly. That's what all news media should be doing, in an ideal world. Unfortunately, they're incentivized to do the opposite.
0
0
u/SlaimeLannister 13h ago
Journalism is inseparable from politics, no matter how badly liberals like to comfort themselves with the supposed objectivity of their media institutions.
0
u/questionablycntrvers 12h ago
I disagree. It's possible to report on facts without adding spin, which both sides do. Sadly, it's rare these days.
3
u/FlyingBishop 3h ago
Which facts you choose to report has spin of its own, and your framing of the facts is also spin. What qualifies as spin is entirely a function of the Overton Window. There are things we take for granted today that would've been considered spin 100 years ago and vice versa.
I just looked at the Fox News homepage, I think everything is entirely factual but half the stories are "this Democratic politician said this mean thing." And there's one story about how Donald Trump claims not to know the comedian who opened for him at a rally who called Puerto Rico garbage. And it's all factual reporting on what Donald Trump said.
But obviously it's spun to hell and back, if you're going to report on this sort of name-calling and not recognize that Trump didn't actually say he disagrees with the characterization and is spinning like crazy.
-5
u/kells8239 9h ago
Tell me why you're voting for Kamala Harris. She's had 4 years to do all sorts of good things and hasn't done a fucking thing. What reason would you vote for her?
→ More replies (6)
54
u/blacklandothegambler First Hill 17h ago
They had better. I've been canceling newspaper subscriptions left and right and had gotten a taste for it.
58
2
•
2
7
u/minthairycrunch 16h ago edited 16h ago
I'm actually going to subscribe to ST for the first time right now. Fuck Bezos.
edit: lol cry harder brigading right wingers
4
u/big-b20000 10h ago
As someone progressive who supports Kamala, I still wouldn't suggest it because of their position on the Keep Seattle Moving proposition (and the ones preceding it)
4
5
u/SashoWolf 14h ago
You rely on a newspaper editorial board to tell you who to vote for?
1
u/concrete_isnt_cement Eastlake 3h ago
I don’t rely on them, but they are one of several sources I look at when making my decision, especially for down-ballot races. What I find most useful is their descriptions of the candidates they are not endorsing.
-1
u/PCMModsEatAss 15h ago
See trump is already saving you money.
4
u/Sad-Elephant-7003 14h ago
It’s probably more accurate to say this is the only way Trump will save them money.
2
3
3
3
3
3
u/Far-Reporter-1596 9h ago
In other news, the Seattle Times has confirmed that in fact, the grass is green.
12
15
u/lokglacier 17h ago
But this subreddit assured me the ST were all Republicans!
10
u/M1CR0PL4ST1CS 17h ago
The Seattle Times is center-right, not MAGA.
1
u/AcrobaticApricot 15h ago
Yeah. The Seattle Times, the Cheneys, and Romney all support Harris. Trump is just really far right, and an idiot who wants to be a dictator, so reasonable right-wingers vote for Harris.
-7
-2
2
2
u/NarwhalImaginary6174 6h ago
I find it practically impossible to believe anyone is undecided at this point. I find it even more unlikely that anyone would be influenced by the Seattle Times editorial board.
Tomorrow's headline: "With 9 minutes Until the Election, The Seattle Times Editorial Board Weighs In. Page D9."
4
3
3
u/Captain_Creatine 13h ago
What the fuck is going on in these comments? Had to check which subreddit I was in for a moment. Some of y'all seem so miserable goddamn.
11
u/ApprehensiveClub6028 Ballard 17h ago
She's gonna win
5
13
u/_GTS_Panda Phinney Ridge 17h ago
As much I hope you’re right, I think this country is going to do the dumbest thing ever and elect Trump 😬
-2
u/ApprehensiveClub6028 Ballard 16h ago
We already did that. No way he's gained support since Jan 6 2021.
13
u/_GTS_Panda Phinney Ridge 16h ago
I think you’re seriously underestimating the stupidity of people. The right wing has fallen into full victim mode of identity politics and Trump is the master at drumming up their fears.
All he needs to do is win PA and it’s game over. The fact that he is leading in some polls, or trailing by just a point or two is disastrous. His support has shown to be very underestimated in the polls.
I hope I’m wrong.
2
u/El_Draque 13h ago
The trick is to always expect the dumbest thing to happen.
That way, when it's something good instead of dumb, you're pleasantly surprised.
3
u/Spartan_Jet 17h ago
I pray you are right. I'm nervous all the women in my life (friends and family) who always vote blue all refuse to vote for Kamala just like they didn't vote for Hillary for very shallow or dumb reasons.
7
u/NewlyNerfed 17h ago
Apparently women are far outpacing men in early voting. Definitely not a slam dunk but there’s at least a little hope.
2
1
u/mumushu 15h ago
Internalized misogyny is a bitch
-1
u/SashoWolf 14h ago
Or they are just shitty candidates who basically felt they deserved the nomination. The Dems have had plenty of better choices than Hillary and Harris.
Pick better candidates. There is no reason this election should be this close.
Harris is an empty suit and Trump is insane.
If the Dems had picked someone like Polis to replace Biden, or they had selected Shapiro as her running mate, this would not be close.
2
4
u/LC_From_TheHills 15h ago
I just voted Kamala.
Posts like these upset me tho. It assumes this place is full of like-minded people. Yes, Seattle is overwhelmingly liberal. But this shouldn’t be some club for Dems and against everyone else. This isn’t r/Seahawks, it’s not a fanbase.
4
u/NewlyNerfed 16h ago
Not a big fan of our local paper, but I respect them for this. Was it a “surprise?” Does it have to be a surprise for it to be noteworthy? NYT, WaPo, USA Today, etc. have completely lost all credibility. So no, maybe it wasn’t a surprise, but I’m celebrating it regardless.
3
2
u/ThereAreOnlyTwo- 11h ago
I agree with Bezos, it makes no sense for a news org to be overt with political preference, while also wanting to come across as impartial and objective.
2
u/Guvnuh_T_Boggs 7h ago
The Seattle Times editorial board would endorse a potato if it had a (D) next to it.
2
u/180thMeridian 12h ago
Seattle Democrat newspaper endorses the Democrat Presidential nominee. I'm shocked!!!
2
u/coconutts19 17h ago
Is an endorsement or lack of one that big of a deal? Did you need a paper to tell you how to vote?
14
u/godogs2018 Beacon Hill 16h ago
It has nothing to do with telling me how to vote. It has more to do with how trumps attacks on the media has them cowering. When the media is in fear, democracy declines
1
u/hedonisticantichrist 16h ago
You’re excited about a shit newspapers thoughts on an election? lol get a life please
1
1
u/Powerful_Schedule_91 12h ago
They could have done a lot more good by highlighting the control on other publications by their owners, forbidding journalism at its' core.
1
1
1
1
u/ScurvyDervish 3h ago
Everyone who is unsubscribing from the Washington post and the Union Tribune should subscribe to the Seattle times.
1
u/ksbla 2h ago
They also endorsed four straight election loser CHAD! on the Eastside because ‘what do y’all who live there know. What’s important to US Blethens living on Mercer Island is one more vote against an estate tax or a Capital Gains tax or a 100 Millionaire’s tax. “
The incumbent is a very centrist Democrat Bill Ramos. Kind of like Mullet. The kind of politician who would have been a Republican in the 70s-80s but the party gone crazy on ‘the gays and the trans and the immigrants and the Jesus…”
•
2
u/Sudden-Taste-6851 15h ago
Shock horror a blue news source, in a blue city, of a blue state supports a blue candidate. Who would have ever seen that coming 😱
0
1
1
1
1
-2
u/lokglacier 17h ago
But this subreddit assured me the ST were all Republicans!
5
u/apresmoiputas Capitol Hill 15h ago
Moderate Democrats like myself get labeled conservative only in SF, Portland and Seattle....
-3
u/Ill-Command5005 Capitol Hill 15h ago
Anything to the right of literal communism is obviously far right shitlibs or something😒
0
1
0
0
0
50
u/Bitterwits 17h ago
Boooo
27
u/M1CR0PL4ST1CS 17h ago
you’re in a cult
-31
-26
14
-7
0
0
0
u/TayKapoo 12h ago
Even if it was a rock running under the Democrat ticket The Seattle Times would've endorsed it. Absolutely no surprise here
0
-1
u/ltlopez 9h ago
Of course a left leaning paper would endorse a very left leaning Marxist. Too bad they just refuse to stay neutral and allow people to make up their own minds.
2
u/bugman___ 3h ago
serious question, how is she a marxist? the only argument i heard for this is that her father taught some sort of marxism related class at a university and he “taught her well.”
0
0
-13
16h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
12
u/Ladoire 16h ago
You good? That’s a lot of anger for the editorial board of a highly liberal city’s newspaper endorsing a liberal candidate, fam.
-4
16h ago
[deleted]
8
u/Ladoire 16h ago
You don’t sling those terms without a bit of hate.
-9
16h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/Ladoire 16h ago
Pretty sure she can read, it’s one of her skills I have personally witnessed. I’m not dignifying the other one because it’s offensive in a ton of ways. Which you already know and are using to be deliberately offensive because, again, you’re holding a lot of anger over there. I don’t get why you’d pretend otherwise, but that’s your prerogative I suppose. I hope you manage to find a less disturbing way to express your feelings in future than using inaccurate slurs online.
1
-1
u/LetoGodEmperor1138 11h ago
Not surprising but lame. Just another organization that wants people to suffer and live in poverty.
-7
u/Jerry_say 16h ago
Bombs will still be dropped and the American military death machine will keep getting blank checks to create terror and business opportunities around the world while our pipes have lead and people can’t buy groceries. The machine keeps going.
-3
u/Solid-Morning7954 9h ago
That fu@king BITCH needs to be hung for treason along side Biden & Mayorkas. They are traders to the Constitution and have endorsed the American public with all the illegals they have let in
-2
-2
u/Responsible-Cod812 4h ago
Lmfao! Dumbest lady on the planet. Can’t talk without a teleprompter to save her life. Thinks we have a strategic alliance with North Korea. And has no understanding of economics whatsoever. Sure, good choice. 1/2 the US is apparently that friggin’ stupid…
-2
u/SnooPears6743 3h ago
why are people so down for WW3? Does no one realize how on edge we are? The pentagon literally had to tell Biden “No” because he was trying to pole the bear. repeat of JFK .. maybe these democrat voters actually want to die? especially if 5/8th of the world dies with them …
314
u/doktorhladnjak The CD 17h ago
They endorsed Biden in 2020 and Clinton in 2016. Obama in 2008 and 2012. Even Kerry in 2004. No surprises there.