For me, the endorsement of a particular candidate for President by legacy media is just plain dumb. We all know who the legacy media is going to support because they have almost always been left-leaning for the most part. If there is part of the electorate that is going to allow their decision for who they are going to vote for to be influenced by a news outlet then that voter is dumb as a door nail anyway. Perhaps I give voters too much credit here but I like to believe that people are not so easily influenced.
src
What I find so silly about Newsweek calling out the LA Times, WaPo, and USA Today among others is the fact that Newsweek, as well as a vast majority of their legacy media has spent the past 8 years or so ousting themselves as being completely untrustworthy as far as being actual news is concerned. I don't think it was always this way because as a youth I recall my father subscribed to Newsweek and I believe it was a respected publication at the time. It certainly is not now and like most print-to-digital attempts at conversion, Newsweek has seen themselves basically forced to pick a side in order to retain what few viewers they still have.
Print media being dead is of course a major factor for obvious reasons but I think that there are some publications out there that are taking what I consider to be a logical step in at least attempting to create an illusion of impartiality.
src
In this rather silly article penned by Newsweek they are attempting to throw shade at various newspapers for being "spineless" and refusing to endorse any candidate. To me, I think it is an extremely wise business decision to remain as politically neutral as possible as far as this dying industry is concerned. They called the WaPo decision to not endorse anyone "controversial" but I loved owner Jeff Bezos' response to this "controversy" when he simply stated "there is a general distrust of the media."
I have no solid opinion of Jeff Bezos, I am sure that just like all billionaires he is at least a bit of a scumbag, but he is not wrong about this and it is wise of him to recognize that. Yes, there is a general distrust of the media to the point where it is actually very wise for him to make this decision and forget about the people that it pisses off. At the end of the day these news outlets are businesses and if any of them made any sort of real effort to truly be unbiased as far as their editorial staff are concerned, they might actually find people out there that are interested in their product.
I think that it would be so damn obvious that the people are truly looking for unbiased news and since nobody actually provides that, this is why everyone is no longer paying any attention to what the MSM has to say. This is also why MSM outlets are dropping like flies and being replaced by independents such as Joe Rogan. Try as they may to smear someone like Joe, he actually had a larger reach than they do.
Newsweek is dead and probably can't recover from that. They have enough clout to stay afloat for a bit longer but since their allegiance is so easily identified, nobody can really take them seriously in anything that they report. The papers that are refusing to endorse Kamala, I think they are very correct in doing this. I think it is too little too late but if they want to be able to survive the next 10 years somebody better try something different.
By not endorsing any candidate, they can at least pretend to be impartial, even though we all know they are not. The fact that Newsweek thinks that they have any clout in this game anymore is just hilarious. They are so full of themselves that they don't realize that nobody really cares what they think anymore.
