Hacker News Reader

Comment by good8675309 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

The Washington Post has endorsed a candidate every election cycle since 1976, with the exception of 1988. The New York Times has endorsed a candidate in every presidential election since its founding in 1851.

yes. its always been done and therefore is good! …?

What was said was: "In the 90s newspapers made an effort to not endorse candidates to appear unbiased".

This was countered with "endorsements have been a thing since long before the 90s".

Previous poster didn't say anything about what's "good" or "bad". They pointed out a claim was incorrect.

Just because it has always been done doesn't make it good.

It's surprising to me that a news organization not publishing an opinion piece is itself giant front page news

What's so bad about large institutions in the opinion shaping space endorsing?

Nothing, I suppose. I honestly didn't realize it's so contentious. I guess it just seemed kind of weird for "the news" to have an opinion at all. Why do people want an organization to tell them who they think should be president?

I definitely remember the 1990s differently.

They still had endorsements, but it just wasn’t spelled out that way.

Instead, just prominent opinions, hit pieces, etc.

I do remember the 1990s where it was typically local newspapers doing explicit endorsements and it was almost always limited to local candidates and issues.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com