As a layperson who does not really follow politics, it is bizarre to me that ANY organization that labels itself a journalistic institution would willingly give up any pretense of neutrality by supporting any specific political candidate or party.
Editorials and suchlike are typically presented as such, carved out and noted as their own special section, so that's okay. However, although TFA mentions editorial authors and staff, I got the sense that it was the papers themselves that were endorsing (or not) specific candidates.
And my point is that what makes the difference between “feels like” and “actually is” a dystopian nightmare hinges very much on the precise value of Y.
In this case we already know that we’re living the nightmare.
12 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 49.4 ms ] threadAn individual, or organization, decides what their democratic responsibility is, so I don't think it's a betrayal. However, it is cowardice.
A non-endorsement could be because of cowardice, but it doesn't have to be.
In essence, the same as editorials and suchlike.
This already feels like a dystopian nightmare.
That’s because it’s one we woke up from and now have a coin toss chance of having again.
In this case we already know that we’re living the nightmare.