CNN is now trashing the effectiveness of newspaper endorsements!!!

[flpoljunkie]

Kurtz does note that Kerry is leading in endorsements, 45-30 and 3 to 1 lead in circulation numbers.

Shit! Kurtz may be telegraphing that the Washington Post may endorse Bush since they supported the Iraq war. Their editorial board is thought to be more conservative than it has ever been even though they have some great reports and columnists, including E. J. Dionne, Dana Priest, and Walter Pincus.

[aquart]

1. The WaPo would have no credibility left. NADA. None.

[SammyWinstonJack]

2. Only because the endorsements favor Kerry

Doubt they would be saying that if the situation were reversed.

[girl gone mad]

12. They'd be saying:

"There's no way Kerry can recover from this devastating lack of mainstream newspaper endorsements."

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. Anyone want to stage a protest in front of the WaPo HQ?

Let's shame them into supporting Kerry.

[Supersedeas]

4. debates, indorsements, elections don't matter-only the Media Matters

to the Media.

[PretzelWarrior]

5. Washington Post will choose Kerry

Kerry has solid support of most leading newspaper editorial boards.

[eurolefty]

6. They are getting desperate.

Nobody's buying their bullshit anymore.

[rocktivity]

7. They don't include Zogby in their polls story, now this?!

The hotline between CNN and the white house must be searing!

:headbang:
rocknation

[devinsgram]

9. Yeah, I hope they don't run out of knee pads.

[Ron Green]

8. CNN is absoutely an RNC house organ now.

[phlyphisher]

10. Hmm...

I don't really think that newspaper endorsements really sway voters either way, they just piss subscribers off who favor the other candidate! They can't hurt, though...

In typical news organizations, most reporters and some editors lean left, while publishers generally lean right.

Of course, I trust what the scab CNN news crew says about as much as I trust The Weekly Standard.

[The Backlash Cometh]

15. They do where I live.

Lots of Kool-Aid drinkers.

[hughee99]

11. I have always wondered how effective they really are.

I don't know of anyone who was truly undecided and said "Well, newspaper X has endorsed the canidate, so I'll vote for them." I also felt it was not quite right that any institution which claims to be objective and non-partisan endorses any canidate. It's clear that they're doing this to help *, but I've never felt good about these endorsements.

[rocktivity]

14. I've always seen them as more of a positive reinforcement thing

I know it's always made me feel good when me and the paper are endorsing the same candidate. I suppose it could help an undecided voter, though, especially if it's backed up with information that that's convincing and useful.

:headbang:
rocknation

[hughee99]

16. That sounds sensible

But I still wonder about a potential conflict of interests when any news organization announces that it is endorsing (supporting) one candidate over another, and yet continues to run "objective" stories on the election. I know that an endorsement doesn't really mean that an organization can't be objective, but it could create the appearance of partisanship.

[FrenchieCat]

13. CNN =

Media Mafia

[John_H]

17. The WaPo IS going to endorse the chimp. They lost credibility years ago.

[coalition_unwilling]

18. Don't forget Harold Meyerson (altho not sure if he still writes a column)

His analysis in L.A. Weekly has been some of the most insightful of the campaign.