eric, good op piece on newspapers and endorsements. however, i disagree with this opinion: 'Why should these particular “institutions” presume to promote, say, “limited government” in their disembodied voices? Nonpartisan TV and radio stations don’t do it. Newsmagazines don’t do it. Universities don’t do it. Other “institutions” filled with smart, well-informed people don’t do it.' so, what's a 'nonpartisan tv or radio station'? 'Newsmagazines don't do it'? i can assure you that The Economist, a highly respected [in my mind] newsmagazine does it. and as far as newspapers, the NYT certainly promotes an agenda with its arrogant conceit: 'All the news that's fit to print.' so, may i safely assume that, if a 'news story', however defined, does not appear in the NYT, it wasn't fit to print?
Eric, I loved your article on endorsements because it’s a balanced analysis of how it works, what it means and what it doesn’t. Made me think what I’d like to see is the script of the committee discussion before the endorsement is decided by the chair. Get 6 smart informed newspaper people in a room and let me hear what and how they think about the candidates.
Hmmm. I always found WXRT listeners to be a bit smug (even though I enjoyed some of the station's programming on occasion). Listening to college music in one's 30s and 40s (or 50s and 60s) is not really any more "musically sophisticated" than listening to high school music at those ages (former WLUP and WMET listeners).
I can’t account for the smugness, but but as a longtime XRT listener, I can say that there were always a few distinctions about it that made it more appealing than most of the other rock based stations. For one thing, it’s DJs were allowed to have personalities and show a bit of charm and spontaneity (a difference, alas, that I think is even more evident today), and it’s programming was also fairly eclectic; I always liked the way it blended the sounds of hard hitting, guitar driven classic stoner rock (which was what I was most partial to when I started listening thirty some years ago) with folk, reggae, new wave and other genres, and I’m sure that this helped to gradually expand my musical tastes and branch them out. That eclecticism, however, has sometimes caused me to scratch my head with regards to some of their programming choices. Why, for example, do Led Zeppelin, Jethro Tull, Bad Company and Cheap Trick all make the cut, but Rush, Black Sabbath, AC/DC and (for the most part) Aerosmith do not? These are all my children, and while I may show signs of favoritism, I love them all equally. Oh well, I’ll just be thankful that on the rare occasions that they do play Aerosmith, it isn’t anything more recent than 1976.
If the Tribune were to publish another thousand years, I would still look back on their Gary Johnson endorsement and say, “this was their finest hour.”
I don’t know about their finest hour, but I certainly don’t think that the Johnson endorsement was the monumental travesty that it’s alleged to be. There were two toxic, contemptible and contemptuous candidates at the top of the main parties’ tickets in 2016. Among other defects, they each were brazen and blunt in describing their utter disdain for not only their opponents, but for anyone that supported them ( or would even consider it). Not exactly an MO for someone who is jockeying to be leader of all of the people. In this light, the Trib’s endorsement of a qualified third party candidate seemed totally logical, and I commend them for it.
I agree! They went against the fixed idea that you shouldn’t vote third party, you shouldn’t endorse or support third party, and you shouldn’t run as a third party, because, “we have two parties.”
The Texas bail reform you cited was the result of a "federal consent decree that eliminated cash bail for most people charged with misdemeanors". Texas has another law that requires cash bail for those accused of violent felonies. If the Safe-T bill was simply to eliminate cash bail for people charged with misdemeanors, I don't think you'd have "alarmists". Republicans, democrats or independents...
I am not a fan of endorsements. But I would really value a special section that covered each race. The section would have a side-by-side presentation each candidate's positions on policy and major issues. Each point would have the candidate statement followed by a fact-check statement. They might also highlight campaign ad summaries with a BS meter. I would pay extra for that.
"...readers are often confused, especially online, about the differences between news stories, opinion pieces and editorials." So Fake News. LOL. Certainly there are many people who question, align, ridicule news outlets for their endorsement. As noted, there are some assumptions of what goes on behind the scenes - but you have better insight on what actually happens. (Even without direct involvement - you have the resources to be able to learn about what's behind the curtain). Stopping endorsements seems the right direction - while not getting blow back, financial considerations, and information/misinformation. Those seeking out more in depth information to determine who to vote for will find the information. I think there are few people who wait for the endorsement post to make a decision. That leaves the rest to vote based on their party lines, POV, or other personal insights. I'm not sure if that's good or bad. 2. Axios.... So headline is.... "Chicago Bears from the democratic long winded city vs the Special interest, self serving city of the Washington Team meet up Thursday night."???
It should be thick enough, i.e. non-transparent or translucent.
It should be loose and not tight on her body.
It should not be decorated or ornate such as to attract onlookers.
It should not be perfumed.
It should not be considered libas al-shuhrah (showy or status seeking).
It should not resemble the dress of men.
It should not resemble the dress of the unbelievers.
It should not bear crosses or depictions of anything with a soul (humans, animals, etc.)
These rules are interpreted in a range of very conservative to very liberal ways. It should be perfectly obvious that millions of American women that are Muslim are quite capable of making a personal choice on these rules, informed by a wide variety of family and community inputs. This is also true throughout the rest of the world, even in countries that are more religiously conservative. There are a similar range of views in Judaism. many Christian sects, and other religions. There is nothing especially onerous about the hijab, and it is far less restrictive than other garb.
For Americans, it is probably best for everyone to assimilate to the Enlightenment philosophies. One of those is freedom of religion, which includes the practices of those religions. Every individual is free to determine how those freedoms fit into their enjoyment of all of the other aspects of an Enlightened society. The secular, unrestricted dress (and freedoms) of women that is accepted in the West must include the choice of modest dress for either secular or religious reasons. And I believe that we will continue to see the Enlightenment philosophy gain dominance throughout the world.
Yes, institutionalized tolerance, born of the Enlightenment which in turn was born of stupid religious conflict, is the greatest cruelty containment mechanism yet invented by humankind. The French idea of banning "conspicuous religious symbols" in school violates those values, in my view. One cannot help cultural pressure to wear a hijab except to publicly question it, as Eric did with the CAIR guy which is totally acceptable, and to protect those who choose to rebel.
I don't pay much attention to endorsements for major candidates, but I have relied on it in voting for judges or other minor candidates, so I will miss that. I have no idea what judges to retain!
I like traditional endorsement editorials. I like their pith, scope, and tone. I like that they're reliable. I'll miss them when they're gone. I think they add something to the discussion.
The only real reason that Alden is stopping them is that they piss off readers. Okay, I guess. I see the point. I'm not sure that's a great reason though.
I like the idea of an institutional voice that assesses issues through the lens of a particular set of values, at least on the opinion pages. I like that there are a variety of publications that can be relied upon to advance the most responsible versions of their respective camps' positions. It's easy for me to get the best conservative take on issues of the day. I just read the Wall Street Journal's editorials. It's relatively hard for me to get the best progressive or left-of-center take, because the New York Times has stopped publishing daily editorials.
But even if we got rid of the institutional voice concept, I'd be okay with editorial-style columns under bylines that endorse candidates. You could even do point/counterpoint. But I doubt that will happen. Because those will piss off readers too. Making an argument on something controversial is offensive. Oh well.
I think we'll end up with barely any reputable outlets publishing any columns straightforwardly arguing for how citizens should exercise their most fundamental right and duty. So people won't be told what to think -- by reputable outlets, that is, only by online morons.
Interesting conversation about 'blind auditions', and particularly the introduction of 'blind auditions' as a way to overcome sexism in selection of musicians. But antiracist's do not want equal opportunity. They have specifically defined colorblind racism as providing equal opportunity, which does not provide 'equity outcomes'. They believe that non-whites are owed preference in selection which equal opportunity does not provide. This unequal opportunity does not need to be fair because it is justified by white privilege. I would think that they would assess the evaluation of skill and talent in playing classical music as racist in itself, given the source of the music. In fact, I would expect a demand for orchestras to train non-white musicians, that might, at most, compete with each other to fill vacancies.
interesting. difficult to argue against the argument[s], as i can't assess the writer's motives. but if he's a regular to the PS, i assume that he's thoughtful.
i normally love reading the tweets of the week. i usually think 3-6 of them are very funny or thought provoking. this week's was the worst collection of tweets of the week in the history of the PS - not a one of them funny or thought provoking to me. however, i realize that opinions are like __ - everybody has one, and they all stink.
Some weeks are better than others, to be sure. But to judge from the overall number of votes cast, this is not the worst batch ever according to the hive mind.
eric, good op piece on newspapers and endorsements. however, i disagree with this opinion: 'Why should these particular “institutions” presume to promote, say, “limited government” in their disembodied voices? Nonpartisan TV and radio stations don’t do it. Newsmagazines don’t do it. Universities don’t do it. Other “institutions” filled with smart, well-informed people don’t do it.' so, what's a 'nonpartisan tv or radio station'? 'Newsmagazines don't do it'? i can assure you that The Economist, a highly respected [in my mind] newsmagazine does it. and as far as newspapers, the NYT certainly promotes an agenda with its arrogant conceit: 'All the news that's fit to print.' so, may i safely assume that, if a 'news story', however defined, does not appear in the NYT, it wasn't fit to print?
Eric, I loved your article on endorsements because it’s a balanced analysis of how it works, what it means and what it doesn’t. Made me think what I’d like to see is the script of the committee discussion before the endorsement is decided by the chair. Get 6 smart informed newspaper people in a room and let me hear what and how they think about the candidates.
Hmmm. I always found WXRT listeners to be a bit smug (even though I enjoyed some of the station's programming on occasion). Listening to college music in one's 30s and 40s (or 50s and 60s) is not really any more "musically sophisticated" than listening to high school music at those ages (former WLUP and WMET listeners).
I can’t account for the smugness, but but as a longtime XRT listener, I can say that there were always a few distinctions about it that made it more appealing than most of the other rock based stations. For one thing, it’s DJs were allowed to have personalities and show a bit of charm and spontaneity (a difference, alas, that I think is even more evident today), and it’s programming was also fairly eclectic; I always liked the way it blended the sounds of hard hitting, guitar driven classic stoner rock (which was what I was most partial to when I started listening thirty some years ago) with folk, reggae, new wave and other genres, and I’m sure that this helped to gradually expand my musical tastes and branch them out. That eclecticism, however, has sometimes caused me to scratch my head with regards to some of their programming choices. Why, for example, do Led Zeppelin, Jethro Tull, Bad Company and Cheap Trick all make the cut, but Rush, Black Sabbath, AC/DC and (for the most part) Aerosmith do not? These are all my children, and while I may show signs of favoritism, I love them all equally. Oh well, I’ll just be thankful that on the rare occasions that they do play Aerosmith, it isn’t anything more recent than 1976.
If the Tribune were to publish another thousand years, I would still look back on their Gary Johnson endorsement and say, “this was their finest hour.”
I don’t know about their finest hour, but I certainly don’t think that the Johnson endorsement was the monumental travesty that it’s alleged to be. There were two toxic, contemptible and contemptuous candidates at the top of the main parties’ tickets in 2016. Among other defects, they each were brazen and blunt in describing their utter disdain for not only their opponents, but for anyone that supported them ( or would even consider it). Not exactly an MO for someone who is jockeying to be leader of all of the people. In this light, the Trib’s endorsement of a qualified third party candidate seemed totally logical, and I commend them for it.
I agree! They went against the fixed idea that you shouldn’t vote third party, you shouldn’t endorse or support third party, and you shouldn’t run as a third party, because, “we have two parties.”
The Texas bail reform you cited was the result of a "federal consent decree that eliminated cash bail for most people charged with misdemeanors". Texas has another law that requires cash bail for those accused of violent felonies. If the Safe-T bill was simply to eliminate cash bail for people charged with misdemeanors, I don't think you'd have "alarmists". Republicans, democrats or independents...
I am not a fan of endorsements. But I would really value a special section that covered each race. The section would have a side-by-side presentation each candidate's positions on policy and major issues. Each point would have the candidate statement followed by a fact-check statement. They might also highlight campaign ad summaries with a BS meter. I would pay extra for that.
Does the Tribune still supply a printable cheat sheet of their endorsements to take with you into the voting booth?
"...readers are often confused, especially online, about the differences between news stories, opinion pieces and editorials." So Fake News. LOL. Certainly there are many people who question, align, ridicule news outlets for their endorsement. As noted, there are some assumptions of what goes on behind the scenes - but you have better insight on what actually happens. (Even without direct involvement - you have the resources to be able to learn about what's behind the curtain). Stopping endorsements seems the right direction - while not getting blow back, financial considerations, and information/misinformation. Those seeking out more in depth information to determine who to vote for will find the information. I think there are few people who wait for the endorsement post to make a decision. That leaves the rest to vote based on their party lines, POV, or other personal insights. I'm not sure if that's good or bad. 2. Axios.... So headline is.... "Chicago Bears from the democratic long winded city vs the Special interest, self serving city of the Washington Team meet up Thursday night."???
Islamic Dress Code for Women.
It should cover the whole body.
It should be thick enough, i.e. non-transparent or translucent.
It should be loose and not tight on her body.
It should not be decorated or ornate such as to attract onlookers.
It should not be perfumed.
It should not be considered libas al-shuhrah (showy or status seeking).
It should not resemble the dress of men.
It should not resemble the dress of the unbelievers.
It should not bear crosses or depictions of anything with a soul (humans, animals, etc.)
These rules are interpreted in a range of very conservative to very liberal ways. It should be perfectly obvious that millions of American women that are Muslim are quite capable of making a personal choice on these rules, informed by a wide variety of family and community inputs. This is also true throughout the rest of the world, even in countries that are more religiously conservative. There are a similar range of views in Judaism. many Christian sects, and other religions. There is nothing especially onerous about the hijab, and it is far less restrictive than other garb.
For Americans, it is probably best for everyone to assimilate to the Enlightenment philosophies. One of those is freedom of religion, which includes the practices of those religions. Every individual is free to determine how those freedoms fit into their enjoyment of all of the other aspects of an Enlightened society. The secular, unrestricted dress (and freedoms) of women that is accepted in the West must include the choice of modest dress for either secular or religious reasons. And I believe that we will continue to see the Enlightenment philosophy gain dominance throughout the world.
Yes, institutionalized tolerance, born of the Enlightenment which in turn was born of stupid religious conflict, is the greatest cruelty containment mechanism yet invented by humankind. The French idea of banning "conspicuous religious symbols" in school violates those values, in my view. One cannot help cultural pressure to wear a hijab except to publicly question it, as Eric did with the CAIR guy which is totally acceptable, and to protect those who choose to rebel.
I don't pay much attention to endorsements for major candidates, but I have relied on it in voting for judges or other minor candidates, so I will miss that. I have no idea what judges to retain!
The plan seems to be for endorsements for down-ballot races to continue.
I like traditional endorsement editorials. I like their pith, scope, and tone. I like that they're reliable. I'll miss them when they're gone. I think they add something to the discussion.
The only real reason that Alden is stopping them is that they piss off readers. Okay, I guess. I see the point. I'm not sure that's a great reason though.
I like the idea of an institutional voice that assesses issues through the lens of a particular set of values, at least on the opinion pages. I like that there are a variety of publications that can be relied upon to advance the most responsible versions of their respective camps' positions. It's easy for me to get the best conservative take on issues of the day. I just read the Wall Street Journal's editorials. It's relatively hard for me to get the best progressive or left-of-center take, because the New York Times has stopped publishing daily editorials.
But even if we got rid of the institutional voice concept, I'd be okay with editorial-style columns under bylines that endorse candidates. You could even do point/counterpoint. But I doubt that will happen. Because those will piss off readers too. Making an argument on something controversial is offensive. Oh well.
I think we'll end up with barely any reputable outlets publishing any columns straightforwardly arguing for how citizens should exercise their most fundamental right and duty. So people won't be told what to think -- by reputable outlets, that is, only by online morons.
Thanks to Charlie for a great pick-me-up today.
Interesting conversation about 'blind auditions', and particularly the introduction of 'blind auditions' as a way to overcome sexism in selection of musicians. But antiracist's do not want equal opportunity. They have specifically defined colorblind racism as providing equal opportunity, which does not provide 'equity outcomes'. They believe that non-whites are owed preference in selection which equal opportunity does not provide. This unequal opportunity does not need to be fair because it is justified by white privilege. I would think that they would assess the evaluation of skill and talent in playing classical music as racist in itself, given the source of the music. In fact, I would expect a demand for orchestras to train non-white musicians, that might, at most, compete with each other to fill vacancies.
interesting. difficult to argue against the argument[s], as i can't assess the writer's motives. but if he's a regular to the PS, i assume that he's thoughtful.
i normally love reading the tweets of the week. i usually think 3-6 of them are very funny or thought provoking. this week's was the worst collection of tweets of the week in the history of the PS - not a one of them funny or thought provoking to me. however, i realize that opinions are like __ - everybody has one, and they all stink.
Some weeks are better than others, to be sure. But to judge from the overall number of votes cast, this is not the worst batch ever according to the hive mind.
I thought number 6 was pretty good, probably because I always have an urge to take a croquet mallet to anyone that says “anywho”.