10/26   So now that almost every major newspaper has endorsed Kerry does
        this prove the notion of a liberal media? Why would newspapers
        controlled by mega-national corporations throw in with Kerry?
        \_ No, and because Bush is a radical.
           \_ Dude! I totally agree!  Bush is gnarly!
              \_ If you're not trolling, you may wish to look up the word
                 'radical'
                 \_ Try googling "define:joke"
        \_ This will be only the 3rd time that the democrat presidential
           candidate has had more endorsements from newspapers than the
           republican, since Editor and Publisher magazine started tracking
           them in 1940 (the other two were Johnson in 1964 and Clinton in
           1992). At least 35 papers that endorsed Bush in 2000 are endorsing
           Kerry this time, while only four who endorsed Gore are endorsing
           Bush. And this is despite a tendency of papers to endorse sticking
           with incumbents. So no, it doesn't "prove the notion of a liberal
           media," it helps demonstrate just how terrible Bush has been.
           \_ Nooo!  Do not you bring your facts here!  They are not
              compatible with my blind partisan indoctrination!!!     -op
           \_ Question:  if Bush wins, does that mean the print media is out of
              the mainstream?  Shouldn't the paper endorsements roughly follow
              the country's nearly-even split?
              \_ Yes. No, unless you want the papers to tell the people
                 what they already think.
                 \_ BZZZT! on point 2.  These are editorial opinions.  If the
                    newspaper people are "just like the rest of us" then they
                    should have roughly the same opinion split.  Unless of
                    course you feel newspaper people are somehow more
                    enlightened and posses superior intellect and moral
                    status.  If you believe that you haven't met enough
                    newspaper people.
                    \_ newspaper editors have significantly more education
                       than the general population, and also pay more
                       attention to the news; therefore they should, on
                       average, have "better" opinions than the median
                       American.  -tom
                       \_ Am I the only one who sees a certain circularity
                          to this argument?
                          \_ No, it's just a tom thing.  At least he's honest
                             about his mistaken belief that newspaper people
                             are better than the rest of us.
                             \_ What is mistaken about my belief? Specifically,
                                I think newspaper editors have more education
                                and pay more attention to the news than the
                                median American.  I think they are more likely
                                to know Kerry's and Bush's positions on the
                                issues, for example.  I don't think they are
                                "better"; they just have a more educated and
                                informed opinion than the general population.
                                The same is probably true of computer
                                programmers.  -tom
                                \_ Here tom, let me spell it out for you.
                                   Newspaper editors help create the news we
                                   see.  Therefore, when the editors 'pay
                                   attention to the news' as you say, they
                                   are paying attention to something
                                   that other newspaper editors helped create.
                                   There is a circularity in this system.
                                   \_ I gave a specific example; I think
                                      newspaper editors are more likely
                                      to know what Bush and Kerry's positions
                                      on the issues really are.  I don't have
                                      a poll of newspaper editors to show you,
                                      but there are a number which show that
                                      the American public has no fucking clue.
                                        -tom
                                   \_ You guys should be arguing specifics,
                                      say, the Washington Post.
                                      I don't think you'll get anywhere talking
                                      about "newspaper editors" and "the
                                      median American", apart from irritating
                                      each other.
           \_ Link? Which papers? I don't care about the Podunk Review in
              Lincoln, Nebraska. I disagree with the definition of 'major'
              below but certainly it is not so wide as to have 35 papers
              flipflop. I am not sure the universe includes 35 papers.
              \_ You should care about the Podunk Review.  Millions of people
                 read the PR across America and take it seriously.
              \_ http://csua.org/u/9nv [editorandpublisher]
                 \_ Thanks. So what do you think a reasonable cut-off for
                    circulation is?
                    \_ Since the circulation numbers are being rigged (they're
                       outright fabrivations to boost ad dollars), it doesn't
                       outright fabrications to boost ad dollars), it doesn't
                       make sense to have a circulation based cut-off.
                       \_ The alternative? I imagine they are 'rigged'
                          equally. Only relative size matters, not
                          absolutes.
                          \_ Why do you imagine all newspapers are equally
                             criminal?  But let's follow your reasoning
                             anyway: a newspaper with a real 100,000 readers
                             inflates by 10%, another one with 1,000,000
                             readers inflates by 10%.  The first has created
                             10k non-existing people, the second has created
                             100k.
                             \_ Uh, so? The idea is to identify the
                                largest papers, not to guess at their
                                actual circulation.
              \_ Your "universe" is small and tiny, as yermom described among
                 other things.
                                      \_ Even if we grant that newspaper people
                                         may know better what each candidate's
                                         beliefs and policies are (which I
                                         still dispute but enough on that), to
                                         know more about a topic is not the
                                         same as being correct about ones
                                         conclusions on that topic.  Having
                                         knowledge does not make one's opinion
                                         more "right".  Don't confuse raw fact
                                         oriented knowledge with wisdom.
        \_ The major newspapers are:
           The Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times,
           USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal. (the latter three have not
           made an endorsement)
           \_ Don't forget The San Francisco Examiner and the Washington Times.
              \_ These are tier 2 or lower, along with:
                 the Chicago Tribune, the Boston Globe, and all the other
                 newspapers.
                 \_ Tribune owns the LA Times.
              \_ These aren't even second tier. Neither one is in the top 100
                 papers in the country by circulation.
              \_ The Washington *Times* has endorsed Kerry?  Seriously?
                 \_ Follow the sub-thread, please!  The topic is:
                    Identifying the major newspapers.
           \_ funny, how most of these majors also called Kerry a crackpot
              for making a link between Iran/Contra and CIA cocaine trading,
              and after the CIA said it was true years later, put the news
              well behind the front page.  irony.
              \_ What are you talking about?  The CIA has never admitted
                 links to cocaine trafficking.
                 \_ CIA Inspector General Fred Hitz admitted that "there are
                    instances where the CIA did not, in an expeditious or
                    consistent fashion, cut off relations with individuals
                    supporting the contra program who were alleged to have
                    engaged in drug trafficking activity."
                    \_ Which is nothing like, "The CIA engaged in the cocaine
                       trade to fund secret off-book programs" which is what
                       the original accusation is about.  The Cold War was a
                       dirty fight for survival.  The CIA existed to do
                       exactly that sort of dirty work and deal with those
                       sorts of people.  Lesser of two evils and all that.
                       \_ Shrug.  The original thread was about how Kerry
                          was not off his rocker about there being a link.
                          It also directs evidence against the guy who wrote
                          "What are you talking about?  The CIA has never
                          admitted links to cocaine trafficking".
                          \_ A "link"?  Of course there was "a link".  That
                             is who the CIA was created to deal with, duh.
                             Did you really prefer the Carter version of
                             Cold War intel where the CIA wasn't supposed to
                             talk to "bad people"?  You're still mixing two
                             different issues: a "link" vs "selling" cocaine.
                             A "link" is meaningless FUD.
                             \_ You're off-topic, sodan.  The comment was
                                directed toward the "CIA never admitted" guy.
        \_ Isn't it obvious by now... based on Sandy Berger, Jayson Blair,
           ANG Memos, SVFT, Kerry's post war activities and now this
           'missing explosives' fraud??
           \_ I can't see all that through the bottom of my kool aid glass.
        \_ When the media pushes Kerry as hard to sign Form 180 as they
           beat up Bush over his military records, I'll believe they're
           something other than partisan left wing hacks.  When they tell us
           about Kerry meeting Madame Binh in Paris while still an active
           duty officer for the US military, I'll believe.  When they say
           they're sorry and they fucked up with the bogus Bush documents
           instead of spinning it into some bullshit "false but accurate"
           which only an extreme leftish partisan finds acceptable, I'll
           believe.  When they stop write large print headlines in response
           to positive Bush admin job news that say, "BONDS DROP ON JOBS
           REPORT!", I'll believe.  The list goes on, but my fingers are
           getting sore.  You get the idea.
           \_ It's hard work.  I know how hard it is.
              \_ Yes, being an honest and unbiased media person is hard
                 work.  Our mainstream media has failed miserably.  Mostly,
                 because they're not even trying.
           \_ Bush still has not signed his form 180 and Bush documents
              are still leaking out.
              \_ Thank you for making my point.  The media has bashed the shit
                 out of Bush on this issue but has completely ignored it in
                 Kerry's case.  In trying to attack Bush you have made my
                 point on this thread's topic which is about the biased Media.
              \- Does anybody know how many papers that endorsed BUSH2000 are
                 endorsing KERRY04. Are there any papers that endorsed ALGOR
                 who are now endorsing BUSH? Even 1? [chicago?] --psb
                 \_ There are about 37 switches for kerry.  i can't remember
                    how many for bush.  one of the links above has the totals.
                    http://csua.org/u/9nv --scotsman
                    http://csua.org/u/9nv
                    Better: http://csua.org/u/9o7
                    --scotsman
                 \_ The Denver Post endorsed Gore and is endorsing Bush.
                    There are two others.
                 \_ Fortunately, the people decide, not newspaper editors in
                    this country.  Endorsements will carry little weight as
                    most papers have a bias which leads to readship which
                    shares that bias.  The SF Chron wouldn't survive in OC,
                    for example.  The OC Register wouldn't make it in SF.
                    \_ you don't think nazi sympathizing and union busting
                       would play in OC?  The SF Chron recently fired a
                       reporter for attending an anti-war rally; they are
                       not any kind of liberal bastion.   -tom