Log in 
New user? RE: This subject intentionally left blank
Message Details
Posted
11/1/2000; 11:48 AM by Jim RoepckeLast Modified
11/1/2000; 11:48 AM by Jim RoepckeIn Response To
RE: This subject intentionally left blank (#1294)Label
PoliticsRead Count
355
Message Body
On Wed, 01 Nov 2000 12:14:50 GMT, Seth Dillingham wrote:
>On Wednesday, November 1, 2000 at 6:18 AM, Jim Roepcke (jim@roepcke.com)
>wrote:
>
>>What really upsets me about this is -- okay, they endorse Bush. Does that
>>mean they want him to win? Does that mean they aren't objective in their
>>reporting? Are they in Bush's camp? If I'm not a Republican (I'm
>>Canadian so this is moot) can I trust this paper to present an unbiased
>>view of the world for me on a daily basis?
>>
>>I don't really understand what this means, for a paper to endorse a
>>political candidate.
>
>Don't you think that NOT endorsing someone is really just keeping their
>opinions hidden?
People have opinions. Corporations have motives. What is the
corporation's motive to endorse a particular candidate?
If they had said "Bob, Lucy and Margaret at the Tribune endorse Bush",
that's one thing, but they're saying the whole newspaper (whatever that
stands for) endorses Bush.
What does that mean? Does it mean that Democrats shouldn't expect an
unbiased newspaper? Does it mean they are funding the Republicans, and
thus Democrats, Libertarians and Greens shouldn't purchase the paper
because they're fueling a political ideology they don't believe in?
>Do you really think that objective reporting requires the reporter to form
>no opinion of his own?
My parents taught me that people shouldn't push their religious or
political views on others. They can share them, but shouldn't try to
force them on others.
Even still, if this was just a reporting forming an opinion of his/her
own, that'd be an entirely different thing than that reporter speaking
on behalf of the whole newspaper or some other force at the newspaper
declaring this opinion to be that of the newspaper.
Jim
---
Jim Roepcke - jim@roepcke.com
Roepcke Computing Solutions
Phone: (250) 381-8963
Personal site: http://jim.roepcke.com/
>On Wednesday, November 1, 2000 at 6:18 AM, Jim Roepcke (jim@roepcke.com)
>wrote:
>
>>What really upsets me about this is -- okay, they endorse Bush. Does that
>>mean they want him to win? Does that mean they aren't objective in their
>>reporting? Are they in Bush's camp? If I'm not a Republican (I'm
>>Canadian so this is moot) can I trust this paper to present an unbiased
>>view of the world for me on a daily basis?
>>
>>I don't really understand what this means, for a paper to endorse a
>>political candidate.
>
>Don't you think that NOT endorsing someone is really just keeping their
>opinions hidden?
People have opinions. Corporations have motives. What is the
corporation's motive to endorse a particular candidate?
If they had said "Bob, Lucy and Margaret at the Tribune endorse Bush",
that's one thing, but they're saying the whole newspaper (whatever that
stands for) endorses Bush.
What does that mean? Does it mean that Democrats shouldn't expect an
unbiased newspaper? Does it mean they are funding the Republicans, and
thus Democrats, Libertarians and Greens shouldn't purchase the paper
because they're fueling a political ideology they don't believe in?
>Do you really think that objective reporting requires the reporter to form
>no opinion of his own?
My parents taught me that people shouldn't push their religious or
political views on others. They can share them, but shouldn't try to
force them on others.
Even still, if this was just a reporting forming an opinion of his/her
own, that'd be an entirely different thing than that reporter speaking
on behalf of the whole newspaper or some other force at the newspaper
declaring this opinion to be that of the newspaper.
Jim
---
Jim Roepcke - jim@roepcke.com
Roepcke Computing Solutions
Phone: (250) 381-8963
Personal site: http://jim.roepcke.com/
Replies
None.
