Sorry, that's more of a non-endorsement of Trump than an endorsement of Harris. Notice how you shared the Politico link, not the NYT link? I dumped my NYT subscription after 2016 and I am not remotely tempted to re-sub.
Exactly! As Timothy Snyder has written, "Do not obey in advance". All the rich guys have proven is that they are craven cowards ready to sell themselves short and the nation out. Wealth does not confer virtue or love of country. That's what fascists and authoritarians know because that's how they operate.
To everyone who's applauding the New York Times editorial (perhaps to protect their access to crossword puzzles?): Please read the actual editorial. It's about 85% a non-endorsement of Trump. They're treating Harris-Walz as the lesser of two evils. If Dick "the devil himself" Cheney can come out and actually endorse Harris-Walz, the New York Times should be able to muster the courage to do likewise.
Interesting, because I don't read that editorial at ALL as "lesser of two evils." It does mention that "She may not be the perfect candidate for every voter," but goes on to say that even for people disaffected by government, she is the better choice. And then it goes on to say, in detail, why. Is ANY candidate the "perfect one" for all voters? She's not perfect for me until she starts womaning up on the Middle East. Still going to vote for her.
You might check how confirmation bias affects your reading. I have deplored certain things, particularly slanted headlines, that the NYT has done consistently, and its treatment of Biden was godawful. But it has MANY good stories about things other than the election--in particular deep dives into the reasons from long before 10/7 why Palestinians are upset with Israel's policies. So my confirmation bias--that it is a good paper that went quite awry on one admittedly major issue--says that was a damn good endorsement.
I like the statement from several years ago that voting is like public transportation. It's unlikely to get you to the front door of where you want to go, so you take the bus that gets you closest to where you want to go.
Fwiw, I'm an editor by trade. I read what's on the page. What I see is several paragraphs devoted to the dangers of Trump before we get around to the positives about Harris-Walz. P.S. Some of us learned decades ago about "why Palestinians are upset with Israel's policies." We were not depending on the New York Times. Does that explain why so many USians were so late to catch on -- they were waiting for the NYT to tell them what to believe?
Sorry, though I ‘m a life long democrat and extremely favorable to Harris, I think there is more to this election than just liking the candidate of one’s choice. I think the Times was exactly right to focus on the dangers of trump. Even Harris is doing that. Is she preaching that she is the "lesser of two evils?" I didn't see any sign at all that the editorial thought Harris was an "evil", greater or lesser.
And do you know the actual details of what you "learned decades" ago? Not just the concept. The day to day nitty-gritty. I read Edward Said in the seventies. But what the Times reported on was eye-opening and rather more up to date than what I learned years ago.
No one says you have to like the Times or want to subscribe. But snide comments about people who can still appreciate what it offers --like "to do the crosswords" or "SOME of us (polishes lapel) didn't depend on the NYT for our general knowledge" and implying that liking their coverage of many things is why Americans are "late to catch on" shows a perhaps unwarranted sniffy sense of superiority.
I’m a retired lawyer by trade. Believe me, I read what’s on the page. I also have degrees in history, secondary education, and all but dissertation in English Lit. So I'm, amongst other things, sensitive to tone. I liked the tone of the editorial. Your tone not so much. Nor, for that matter, the Times' earlier coverage.
Susan, you are right. No candidate is running just for me and my wishes. I'm not even a Democrat (Democratic Socialist here), but I take what the Democrats are offering.
Fay, there's some good news from Kam's Campaign Chair, Jen O'Malley Dillon, morning on Jen Psaki's Show on the intense search to locate & motivate & "low propensity" Voters, female or male. Kam's Team has knocked on 1.2 Million Doors on Battleground States. Young women get-it.
Work pays off as there has been a good turnout of YOUNG "low propensity" Voters in Clark County, Nevada meaning Las Vegas. Need NV!
I posted both Heather's and Dan's substack today along my sadness. I always believed (that fearless word) the goal of journalism was uncovering and bringing truth to inform citizens. It appears that is something for the past. Only the survival of a corporation now matters. The claim of bringing light is now a mockery and plea and acquiescence to a potential dictator. Fools. They will not be protected, merely become the tools to create the impression of legitimacy as guardrails of the democracy become shoulders made of sand for the road to neo-democracy. Thanks Tom and Geeta.
Did someone put roofies in Sulzberger's martini.....? Glad to see the Gray Lady's finally choosing sides. After this shot across the bow, there is NO reason for the Times to shrink from formally endorsing Kamala Harris and Tim Walz for the upcoming election..... I see that they did; the die is cast.
When I was here a few minutes ago, I was mistaken. The NYT editorial board did endorse Harris. I thought it was just opinion columnists. I'll be going now.
What's ironic about the comPost's cowardice is that tRump singled out Bezos during his (only) term in office. What in the all-holy hell makes Bezos and his former Fox publisher think tRump won't do it again? Remember, he called the free press "the enemy of the people "!
On a related note, where does Amazon get a good bit of the products it sells? What does he think a tRump "tarrif wall" (mostly against China) will do to his Amazon business? Bezos has his head up his behind. BTW, like a host of other people, we have cancelled our subscriptions to the WaPo and NYT.
Read Jeff Tiedrich's column today. There are some rather too glaringly obvious coincidences in this hot mess of Post's (Bezos) refusal to endorse.
Also, much of Amazon's profit center circles around digital and other electronic (I think--it was in Rebecca Solnit's article and I can't remember where I read it...) services to the government in about 7500 gov. offices. If Trump did get elected he could really take Bezos's empire down many notches--or so I'm surmising.
It still strikes me as bad strategy on Bezos’ part, assuming he is only interested in preserving government contracts and unhindered use of USPS for Amazon shipments. Trump never repays a favor and never forgets a slight. Being nice now, after having mostly reported the truth these last 9 years, will earn Bezos no dispensation. The better strategy would be to put all shoulders against the wheel and push for a Harris victory.
Just goes to show you that the rich are not smart. They’re just lucky bastards.
GarySanDiego, I definitely agree with your last statement (exhibit #1: Musk) (exhibit #2: Trump himself). However, don't forget Bezos would love to get a piece of the NASA contracts pie for his own phallic rocket company, Blue Origins. Bezos only owns 10% of Amazon's stock.
And I agree about Trump never repaying a favor or forgetting a slight...so I am inclined to think it's the competition with the skippy dipshit that started this shit cascade...from Jeff Tiedrich's article, Bezos called off the endorsement and 20 minutes later Trump was meeting with Blue Origin CEO David Limp (what a richly ironic name for the CEO of the phallus rocket). Smells rather ratty to me. According to former Post editor-at-large Robert Kagan--who quit as soon as the news broke that Bezos had called off the endorsement--"Trump waited to make sure Bezos did what he said he was going to do, and then met with the Blue Origin people."
Maybe the only people who should own media are those who truly care about journalism and don't view media companies as just another line on the spreadsheet....and don't own other enterprises whose bottom line can be affected by opinions on the editorial page.
The opinion pages have been fine--I really don't care that much about them compared with what the likes of Peter Baker and The Habes do on a daily basis. And what they do, and have done, endangers this country.
My guess is that this is motivated only by seeing an opportunity to fish for competitive advantage against WaPo and the LA Times in hopes of drawing the subscribers those two have lost.
Whatever the motivation, it’s good to have a clear and forceful statement before November 5.
I had the same thought Gary. The Times positioned itself as “for” Harris in the weakest possible way, seeing the chance to appear noble and grab some new revenue from angry, recently departed WaPo and LA Times subscribers. Ah well, their offices will be ransacked or they won’t.
Maybe they understand what Bezos doesn’t: that preemptively sucking up to Trump now will curry no favor later.
Yep, glad to see the NYT tiptoeing toward responsibility.
They still haven’t endorsed Harris.
Far be it from me to side with the NYT, but actually they did endorse her: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/09/30/new-york-times-kamala-harris-endorsement-00181639
Sorry, that's more of a non-endorsement of Trump than an endorsement of Harris. Notice how you shared the Politico link, not the NYT link? I dumped my NYT subscription after 2016 and I am not remotely tempted to re-sub.
Agree it wasn't a ringing endorsement of Harris. I dumped my own NYT subscription too so I cannot share an NYT link.;)
oh wait. Here it is: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/30/opinion/editorials/kamala-harris-2024-endorsement.html
You don't think that "The Only Patriotic Choice for President" as a headline is a strong endorsement?
Ah, but they did. See Geeta's response :-)
Exactly! As Timothy Snyder has written, "Do not obey in advance". All the rich guys have proven is that they are craven cowards ready to sell themselves short and the nation out. Wealth does not confer virtue or love of country. That's what fascists and authoritarians know because that's how they operate.
Running scared, too bad Roy O is not here to pen an anthem for the cowards.
No shit, Sherlock…but it took the Times long enough to make such a gesture. Let’s see if it does any damned good.
And as noted elsewhere, it's a limited gesture. So they realize Trump isn't fit to be president. BFD.
To everyone who's applauding the New York Times editorial (perhaps to protect their access to crossword puzzles?): Please read the actual editorial. It's about 85% a non-endorsement of Trump. They're treating Harris-Walz as the lesser of two evils. If Dick "the devil himself" Cheney can come out and actually endorse Harris-Walz, the New York Times should be able to muster the courage to do likewise.
Interesting, because I don't read that editorial at ALL as "lesser of two evils." It does mention that "She may not be the perfect candidate for every voter," but goes on to say that even for people disaffected by government, she is the better choice. And then it goes on to say, in detail, why. Is ANY candidate the "perfect one" for all voters? She's not perfect for me until she starts womaning up on the Middle East. Still going to vote for her.
You might check how confirmation bias affects your reading. I have deplored certain things, particularly slanted headlines, that the NYT has done consistently, and its treatment of Biden was godawful. But it has MANY good stories about things other than the election--in particular deep dives into the reasons from long before 10/7 why Palestinians are upset with Israel's policies. So my confirmation bias--that it is a good paper that went quite awry on one admittedly major issue--says that was a damn good endorsement.
I like the statement from several years ago that voting is like public transportation. It's unlikely to get you to the front door of where you want to go, so you take the bus that gets you closest to where you want to go.
Fwiw, I'm an editor by trade. I read what's on the page. What I see is several paragraphs devoted to the dangers of Trump before we get around to the positives about Harris-Walz. P.S. Some of us learned decades ago about "why Palestinians are upset with Israel's policies." We were not depending on the New York Times. Does that explain why so many USians were so late to catch on -- they were waiting for the NYT to tell them what to believe?
Sorry, though I ‘m a life long democrat and extremely favorable to Harris, I think there is more to this election than just liking the candidate of one’s choice. I think the Times was exactly right to focus on the dangers of trump. Even Harris is doing that. Is she preaching that she is the "lesser of two evils?" I didn't see any sign at all that the editorial thought Harris was an "evil", greater or lesser.
And do you know the actual details of what you "learned decades" ago? Not just the concept. The day to day nitty-gritty. I read Edward Said in the seventies. But what the Times reported on was eye-opening and rather more up to date than what I learned years ago.
No one says you have to like the Times or want to subscribe. But snide comments about people who can still appreciate what it offers --like "to do the crosswords" or "SOME of us (polishes lapel) didn't depend on the NYT for our general knowledge" and implying that liking their coverage of many things is why Americans are "late to catch on" shows a perhaps unwarranted sniffy sense of superiority.
I’m a retired lawyer by trade. Believe me, I read what’s on the page. I also have degrees in history, secondary education, and all but dissertation in English Lit. So I'm, amongst other things, sensitive to tone. I liked the tone of the editorial. Your tone not so much. Nor, for that matter, the Times' earlier coverage.
Susan, you are right. No candidate is running just for me and my wishes. I'm not even a Democrat (Democratic Socialist here), but I take what the Democrats are offering.
for some reason I'm blocked from liking your comment. But I do anyway
No you're not. It's just a stupid Substack glitch. Go hit page refresh and you will see the like. Do the same if a post you put up doesn't show up.
thanks. It took closing and reopening the website. But that worked.
Yeah, but neither Harris nor Trump will be giving Dick a no-bid contract worth bazillions this time around.
True, but I wouldn't bet on Jeff getting one either! (I sure wish there were a way to pull the plug on all the $$$ NASA gives the Muskox.)
They did supposedly endorse her: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/30/opinion/editorials/kamala-harris-2024-endorsement.html
Touche'
We will either step up and
move forward or fall for
fascism. I live in a deep red
state and know what can
happen here. I'm not much,
but I'm 1 and will not roll
back and fall down. There
are millions of us out here.
We will not obey in advance!
YESSS!!!
Better late than never, at least what's his face has more gumption than Bezos and shing-shiong
Fay, there's some good news from Kam's Campaign Chair, Jen O'Malley Dillon, morning on Jen Psaki's Show on the intense search to locate & motivate & "low propensity" Voters, female or male. Kam's Team has knocked on 1.2 Million Doors on Battleground States. Young women get-it.
Work pays off as there has been a good turnout of YOUNG "low propensity" Voters in Clark County, Nevada meaning Las Vegas. Need NV!
Thank you Bryan, great news!
I posted both Heather's and Dan's substack today along my sadness. I always believed (that fearless word) the goal of journalism was uncovering and bringing truth to inform citizens. It appears that is something for the past. Only the survival of a corporation now matters. The claim of bringing light is now a mockery and plea and acquiescence to a potential dictator. Fools. They will not be protected, merely become the tools to create the impression of legitimacy as guardrails of the democracy become shoulders made of sand for the road to neo-democracy. Thanks Tom and Geeta.
"Only the survival of a corporation now matters." Tragic...
Did someone put roofies in Sulzberger's martini.....? Glad to see the Gray Lady's finally choosing sides. After this shot across the bow, there is NO reason for the Times to shrink from formally endorsing Kamala Harris and Tim Walz for the upcoming election..... I see that they did; the die is cast.
This is a free link to their opinion article:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/10/25/opinion/what-trump-says.html?unlocked_article_code=1.VU4.FAMz.zkZWbEJhhrdL&smid=url-share
How large is this article, size-wise? Is it on the front page? and if not, where is it? Thanks.
Click on the link and scroll down to read.
When I was here a few minutes ago, I was mistaken. The NYT editorial board did endorse Harris. I thought it was just opinion columnists. I'll be going now.
The Times doesn’t have to protect a space travel investment, so they aren’t as vulnerable to corruption, apparently.
What's ironic about the comPost's cowardice is that tRump singled out Bezos during his (only) term in office. What in the all-holy hell makes Bezos and his former Fox publisher think tRump won't do it again? Remember, he called the free press "the enemy of the people "!
On a related note, where does Amazon get a good bit of the products it sells? What does he think a tRump "tarrif wall" (mostly against China) will do to his Amazon business? Bezos has his head up his behind. BTW, like a host of other people, we have cancelled our subscriptions to the WaPo and NYT.
Amazon being an international business, might just abandon the US market.
Read Jeff Tiedrich's column today. There are some rather too glaringly obvious coincidences in this hot mess of Post's (Bezos) refusal to endorse.
Also, much of Amazon's profit center circles around digital and other electronic (I think--it was in Rebecca Solnit's article and I can't remember where I read it...) services to the government in about 7500 gov. offices. If Trump did get elected he could really take Bezos's empire down many notches--or so I'm surmising.
It still strikes me as bad strategy on Bezos’ part, assuming he is only interested in preserving government contracts and unhindered use of USPS for Amazon shipments. Trump never repays a favor and never forgets a slight. Being nice now, after having mostly reported the truth these last 9 years, will earn Bezos no dispensation. The better strategy would be to put all shoulders against the wheel and push for a Harris victory.
Just goes to show you that the rich are not smart. They’re just lucky bastards.
GarySanDiego, I definitely agree with your last statement (exhibit #1: Musk) (exhibit #2: Trump himself). However, don't forget Bezos would love to get a piece of the NASA contracts pie for his own phallic rocket company, Blue Origins. Bezos only owns 10% of Amazon's stock.
And I agree about Trump never repaying a favor or forgetting a slight...so I am inclined to think it's the competition with the skippy dipshit that started this shit cascade...from Jeff Tiedrich's article, Bezos called off the endorsement and 20 minutes later Trump was meeting with Blue Origin CEO David Limp (what a richly ironic name for the CEO of the phallus rocket). Smells rather ratty to me. According to former Post editor-at-large Robert Kagan--who quit as soon as the news broke that Bezos had called off the endorsement--"Trump waited to make sure Bezos did what he said he was going to do, and then met with the Blue Origin people."
Maybe the only people who should own media are those who truly care about journalism and don't view media companies as just another line on the spreadsheet....and don't own other enterprises whose bottom line can be affected by opinions on the editorial page.
"comPost" -- BRILILIANT!!! The one and only good thing coming out of this presidential race is new words.
The opinion pages have been fine--I really don't care that much about them compared with what the likes of Peter Baker and The Habes do on a daily basis. And what they do, and have done, endangers this country.
Well, bless their little hearts.
My guess is that this is motivated only by seeing an opportunity to fish for competitive advantage against WaPo and the LA Times in hopes of drawing the subscribers those two have lost.
Whatever the motivation, it’s good to have a clear and forceful statement before November 5.
I had the same thought Gary. The Times positioned itself as “for” Harris in the weakest possible way, seeing the chance to appear noble and grab some new revenue from angry, recently departed WaPo and LA Times subscribers. Ah well, their offices will be ransacked or they won’t.
Maybe they understand what Bezos doesn’t: that preemptively sucking up to Trump now will curry no favor later.
I do appreciate this, knowing that he's holding a rally in NYC today - Madison Square Garden.
Guess who one of the major speakers at the Great Madison Square Gardens Hatealong was?
Giuliani.
Thanks anyway, TC.