Hollywood Sign Expected to Read 'Save the Peak' on Thursday
Hugo's Introduces Vegan Mac & Cheese
Palin Calls Global Warming a 'Bunch of Snake Oil Science'
![_Bye, Bye Hollywood Sign... at Least Temporarily [Updated]](http://laist.com/assets_c/2009/12/view_behind_hwdsign-thumb-110x110-464762.jpg)
Bye, Bye Hollywood Sign... at Least Temporarily [Updated]
One Way to Take Care of Business
The Los Angeles Times went against its recent tradition of not taking sides in presidential elections and endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, calling him "the competent, confident leader who represents the aspirations of the United States."
It marked the Times' first presidential endorsement since 1972 and was the paper's first endorsement of a Democratic presidential candidate in it's 127-year history. The Chicago Tribune editorial board also published its first-ever endorsement of a Democratic presidential nominee today. It is not known whether Sam Zell had any input on either endorsement.
18 days until election day. Registration forms must be postmarked by Monday the 20th.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Huzzah!
" It is not known whether Sam Zell had any input on either endorsement."
My spidey senses feel another round of Zell Hell cut backs coming!
So did they endorse McGovern or Nixon in 1972?
Wahoo! Washington Post yesterday, LA Times today. Bout time. Just sayin'.
Beyond me how a newspaper can actively endorse one candidate. Fuck that. Gimmie my news, not your opinions.
The last endorsement the paper made was Nixon in '72. A lot sure has changed at the LA Times since then.
Gee, guys, Nixon was from California and the state was solidly red that election (as was every other state - including McGovern's own - except MA and DC).
Since a commenter above me clearly doesn't know how newspaper endorsements work - it's the OPINION page, not the whole paper. The paper reports news. The editorial page discusses opinions. That is what is referred to as a liberal/conservative paper - Wall Street Journal, for example is conservative. Not because of the way they cover news (which is always supposed to be objective) but because of their editorial page. You are supposed to trust your paper for news (at least in the 20th century). That's why there's a separate opinion page.
Seriously, Faux News has distorted everyone's sense of media.
Msmerymac,
I understand that it is the opinion page that endorses the candidate, but it is pretty much tantamount to the newspaper endorsing a candidate.
Example: the headline of this article was 'LA Times endorses Barack Obama for President.'
Not "LA TIMES OPINION PAGE endorses Barack Obama for President"
Right?
So did the Chicago Tribune, which is the first time they've supported a Democrat...ever.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-chicago-tribune-endorsement,0,1371034.story
Right.
I clearly didn't read the piece all the way through. Sigh.
Yes, you're right. It's just unfortunate that from the 1920s, onwards, papers attempted to become respectable, unbiased sources of news, and with the demise of equal time under Reagan and the advent of far-right talk radio and cable news, people don't believe any journalists try to be fair or objective in their news coverage anymore. (One editor at the Washington Post said he didn't vote because he didn't want to compromise his objectivity.)
I love the editorial section, though. It's a discourse, not just factual new reporting. Similar to LAist but... not, I guess.
Well, of course. He's hilarious!
I love the editorial section, too. Read it every day. Favorites are Stein, Daum, & Goldberg....
ugh. fuck fox news, msnbc, washington times, etc etc. you go to blogs for biased opinions, not newspapers.