| National
|
[
National ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
443572 |
|
|
Date: October 31, 2024 at 12:40:21
From: ao, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Why The Economist endorses Kamala Harris |
URL: Mr. Trump poses an unacceptable risk to America and the world |
|
The Economist is taking advantage of the space vacated by US news outlets
including The Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today, and
endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential election.
“It is hard to imagine Ms. Harris being a stellar president, though people can
surprise you. But you cannot imagine her bringing about a catastrophe,” The
Economist writes, in an essay addressed at reluctant, Economist-reading
Trump supporters who are “deluding themselves” about the economic and
national security dangers of a Trump presidency. “Presidents do not have to
be saints and we hope a second Trump presidency would avoid disaster. But
Mr. Trump poses an unacceptable risk to America and the world.”
In an interview on Wednesday, the US editor of the British publication, John
Prideaux, said that although the publication had already planned on
endorsing a candidate, recent decisions by the Post and LA Times not to
endorse had also prompted The Economist to consider why the publication
was endorsing, and the value it provided to its readers.
“We don’t think being independent and being opinionated are in conflict
with each other. Reporters have strong views on the subjects they cover
because they’re experts. It’s odd to pretend they don’t,” he said. The
publication’s “leaders,” as its essays are known, already offer “thoughts on
policies and government all over the world. So it would be really weird not to
take that same approach in the US presidential election.”
In recent days, billionaire owners of the Post and LA Times argued that the
papers should ditch endorsements because they fomented mistrust with
their publication’s readers, and created perceptions of bias.
“The Economist is opinionated about lots of subjects, and that’s one of the
things that readers expect from us,” he said. “It would be odd for us to have
an expressed strong opinion about Harris’ tax plan or Trump’s tariffs and
offer no view on who would be the better president. Generally in elections
voters almost always have choices between two flawed candidates. And that
involves weighing up relative weaknesses and relative strengths. The idea of
our endorsement isn’t to tell our readers what to think. We have a really
smart bunch of readers and they don’t need the Economist to supply them
with opinions. The idea is we want to try and think through difficult subjects
or sometimes write things to provoke their own reflections.”
Prideaux said specifically, the endorsement was written with a specific type
of Trump voter in mind: “Somebody who might not do business with Trump
or might not hold Trump up as a role model for his or her children but
nevertheless is going to vote for Trump because they think the first term
went pretty okay and that the case against Trump is wildly overblown.”
The Economist’s endorsement process is unusual. Unlike in American
newsrooms in which the opinion staffers or the editorial board endorse
candidates, both The Economist’s reporters and its more opinion-focused
writers and editors weigh in. The publication gathered 150 of its staff
globally last week to discuss and debate the endorsement. The Economist
had tasked two staffers with writing a case for endorsing each candidate,
and presented their case at the meeting.
The Economist isn’t the only publication to use its rivals’ non-endorsements
as an opportunity to raise awareness for its pick.
As Semafor reported, several media organizations appealed directly to
frustrated or supportive readers by sharing their own endorsements of
Harris. The Guardian said that it had raised nearly $2 million in pledges from
members, while others including Vox and the media newsletter Status also
fundraised directly off of the non-endorsements.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[443574] [443621] [443578] [443579] [443582] [443617] [443626] [443619] [443630] [443575] [443577] |
|
443574 |
|
|
Date: October 31, 2024 at 14:04:05
From: old timer, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Why The Economist endorses Kamala Harris |
|
|
so she was endorsed by a publication that says “ It is hard to imagine Ms.
Harris being a stellar president, though people can surprise you.”? lol
too funny. just imagine if the dems had a candidate who people thought
might be a stellar president! the election wouldn’t even be close. but for
that the dnc would need to support open primaries
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[443621] [443578] [443579] [443582] [443617] [443626] [443619] [443630] [443575] [443577] |
|
443621 |
|
|
Date: November 01, 2024 at 12:01:15
From: akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Why The Economist endorses Kamala Harris |
|
|
yet you still won't address Trump's stellar economic policy which will probably
raise consumer prices for all of us. Why is that?
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
443578 |
|
|
Date: October 31, 2024 at 15:03:02
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Why The Economist endorses Kamala Harris |
|
|
Hmm..I (<---this voter) thinks she will be a stellar
President.
Just make sure you get that on the record. It's on the
internet now, so it's true.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[443579] [443582] [443617] [443626] [443619] [443630] |
|
443579 |
|
|
Date: October 31, 2024 at 15:31:32
From: ao, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Why The Economist endorses Kamala Harris |
|
|
|
me too.. stellar.. kick ass.. far better than anyone imagines..
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[443582] [443617] [443626] [443619] [443630] |
|
443582 |
|
|
Date: October 31, 2024 at 18:26:48
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Why The Economist endorses Kamala Harris |
|
|
|
i think so too...once she gets joe off her back, she will bust some moves! hope she gets a congress to work with...
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[443617] [443626] [443619] [443630] |
|
443617 |
|
|
Date: November 01, 2024 at 10:51:45
From: Harvey, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Why The Economist endorses Kamala Harris |
|
|
She WILL get the House and the Senate!! And she will kick
some very deserving ass! Count on it, Ryan.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[443626] [443619] [443630] |
|
443626 |
|
|
Date: November 01, 2024 at 12:22:54
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Why The Economist endorses Kamala Harris |
|
|
I "think" she will get the house. I'm less sure about
the senate (but hope springs eternal).
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
443619 |
|
|
Date: November 01, 2024 at 11:23:22
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Why The Economist endorses Kamala Harris |
|
|
|
love your confidence and enthusiasm harvey!
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[443630] |
|
443630 |
|
|
Date: November 01, 2024 at 14:13:44
From: Harvey, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Why The Economist endorses Kamala Harris |
|
|
And I give him far less than 6 months, probably less than
3 months after he loses, to flee America under the
pretense of a golf game or such. Probably Saudi Arabia,
and he won't come back I hope that the secret service will
just leave him there to fester and stew until he succombs
to his own venom of hatred. Wouldn't that be a great
Christmas present for America?!?
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
443575 |
|
|
Date: October 31, 2024 at 14:43:35
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Why The Economist endorses Kamala Harris |
|
|
|
why is that any different than i'll hold my nose and vote for rump? lol...much harder to imagine rump being a stellar president than harris...
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[443577] |
|
443577 |
|
|
Date: October 31, 2024 at 14:58:49
From: old timer, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: Why The Economist endorses Kamala Harris |
|
|
my point exactly, the economist endorsement is a bit like them saying they
plan to hold their nose and vote for kamala. i just never figured saying you
would hold your nose and vote for someone would be considered an
endorsement. a damn strange election this year
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
National ] [ Main Menu ] |