Anchorage Daily newspaper endorses Obama

[SHBueche]

This is well-written and well thought out, by the editors at Anchorage Daily:

http://www.adn.com/opinion/story/567867.html

[Shadow_Ferret]

This is well-written and well thought out, by the editors at Anchorage Daily:
Well, that certainly would be a first, wouldn't it? Editors having well thought out thoughts?

[joyce]

Good article and thanks for posting it. I find it amusing that in Palin's own state the newspaper is endorsing Obama.

[cethklein]

Without reiterating my stance on edia outlets endorsing candidates, I will say this: This shocks me given the fact Alaska has one of (if not THE) highest percentages of Republicans in the country.

[willfulone]

Without reiterating my stance on edia outlets endorsing candidates, I will say this: This shocks me given the fact Alaska has one of (if not THE) highest percentages of Republicans in the country.

Yeah, but it is, after all only an opinion piece. Not a polling piece. It is not like they are crying the state supports Obama - although they might.

Just sayin.....

Thanks OP - it was an interesting read.

Christine

[donroc]

In Winter Haven, the Polk County Ledger also came out in its op section for Obama, which was no surprise.

[odocoileus]

Without reiterating my stance on edia outlets endorsing candidates, I will say this: This shocks me given the fact Alaska has one of (if not THE) highest percentages of Republicans in the country.

Papers often go against the local trend.

The Chicago Trib regularly endorsed Republicans until this year, but Chicago's been a Democratic stronghold for over a century. The city of Detroit can put all of its resident Republicans in the back seat of one cab, but the Detroit News endorsed McCain. (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008810230337)

[blacbird]

Good article and thanks for posting it. I find it amusing that in Palin's own state the newspaper is endorsing Obama.

Not as odd as you might think. The ADN is owned by a California newspaper corporation, and has long had a liberal/Democratic editorial slant, though they routinely endorse some Republicans in elections, too, and no doubt will this year also.

When I first moved to Anchorage in 1990, there were two major dailies, the other being the Anchorage Times, which had a conservative/Republican viewpoint. The Times went belly-up two or three years later, but some remnants of its management and editorial staff entered into an arrangement with the ADN to pay for a daily editorial page, known as "The Voice of the Times". There, they continued, directly opposite ADN's own editorial page, to provide their own slant on stuff. This arrangement continued for more than ten years, until a couple of years ago, when it was dropped.

It was dropped because the contract ran out, and also because the lead dog of the "Voice", and a major editorial contributor, was a guy named Bill Allen. Yeah, that Bill Allen, the CEO of the late VECO oil-services corporation, the one who has plead guilty to bribing numerous state legislators and other officials, and who provided, with VECO funds, that big renovation (rebuilding, actually) of the home of Ted Stevens, for which Stevens is now on trial in Washington.

So much for the ethics of the "conservative" newspaper in town.

And, the ADN endorsement doesn't matter; McCain is a lock to win Alaska. The real questions here are Ted Stevens and Congressman Don Young, who is also under suspicion of corrupt practices, as yet unrevealed. He's spent over a million dollars of campaign funds on legal expenses, for reasons he won't divulge.

caw

[Shadow_Ferret]

Good article and thanks for posting it. I find it amusing that in Palin's own state the newspaper is endorsing Obama.
Not at all. This is exactly where the term "liberal media" came from. :D

[astonwest]

Good article and thanks for posting it. I find it amusing that in Palin's own state the newspaper is endorsing Obama.
Much like Al Gore's home state voting for Bush...

[JamieFord]

I lived in Anchorage at the same time Blacbird did and echo those sentiments.

I was working for an Advertising/PR firm at the time and we had numerous oil-related clients. When The Times was often critical of BP, ARCO, Alyeska Pipleline Co, etc, our clients would pull their ads and move that money to the Anchorage Daily News, or into radio.

The result is that over time, the paper that went easier on them survived, and the one critical of them folded. Sad to see capitalism work that way, but I've also worked on the newspaper side, and it's a reality publishers are forced to deal with.

[Death Wizard]

Well, that certainly would be a first, wouldn't it? Editors having well thought out thoughts?

Not at all. Editors, for the most part, do a very good job -- certainly a much better job than people who aren't editors.

[willfulone]

Not at all. Editors, for the most part, do a very good job -- certainly a much better job than people who aren't editors.

Yeah, in editing. One can present an error free document of their opinion, but that does not mean the ideas/thoughts contained within hold more merit over someone else's opinion. For, editing (the title/job) has no bearing on political lean, morals, values/judgements. It is just a job. A job that may allow for articulate presentation. But, nothing more.

Christine

[Shadow_Ferret]

I'd agree with that. Editors edit. That's their job. That certainly doesn't make them qualified to write well reasoned rhetoric.

[Death Wizard]

I find that for the most part it is conservative-thinking people who trash editors at newspapers. I'm not saying this is right or wrong.

[Shadow_Ferret]

I find that for the most part it is conservative-thinking people who trash editors at newspapers. I'm not saying this is right or wrong.
Funny, but I always found it to be people with open minds who trashed editors. And those of us who took Mass Comm. in college.

[Death Wizard]

Funny, but I always found it to be people with open minds who trashed editors. And those of us who took Mass Comm. in college.

People trash what they don't agree with ... and don't trash what they do agree with. (IMO.)

But the "liberal media are a bunch of idiots" refrain gets a little old. The media, at least at the higher levels, are anything but idiots. I know many of these people. I know who and what they are -- some of the most knowledgeable and educated people around. But they do tend to be liberal. And they also tend to do things in staunch defense of our first amendment rights, which also tends to annoy others.

[OneTeam OneDream]

They may or may not be idiots....but they sure say a lot of stupid things.

[willfulone]

I find that for the most part it is conservative-thinking people who trash editors at newspapers. I'm not saying this is right or wrong.

Certainly you imply such. No one said (here that I saw - yet but I am typing and composing my thoughts and someone may have said it by now) that an editor should be trashed. I stated that an editor is not worthy of a higher placement of value on their thoughts/opinions for being in that job.

Christine

[willfulone]

People trash what they don't agree with ... and don't trash what they do agree with. (IMO.)

But the "liberal media are a bunch of idiots" refrain gets a little old. The media, at least at the higher levels, are anything but idiots. I know many of these people. I know who and what they are -- some of the most knowledgeable and educated people around. But they do tend to be liberal. And they also tend to do things in staunch defense of our first amendment rights, which also tends to annoy others.

Bolding and replying:

But the "liberal media are a bunch of idiots" refrain gets a little old.

So does hearing the whining about conservatives directed at our desire not hold what you say above our own ideals/thoughts/values. That we wish to hold our own of the same is not something you should even waste your time thinking about, much less all the whining.

some of the most knowledgeable and educated people around. But they do tend to be liberal. And they also tend to do things in staunch defense of our first amendment rights, which also tends to annoy others.

Our variance of opinion does not mean that we don't hold amendment rights in high regard. But, perhaps we hold a wish for that right to be used for the greater good, rather than for a personal agenda or slams. As you said, most are liberals (and I am going on your statement only). Thus, the stuff in the media is presented and slanted by that view and staunchly (to use another of your words). You support the conservative opinion that what we read cannot be trusted beyond the liberal point of view or agenda of the person doing the writing. Which is not a good light for you to shed your buddies in. Surely, you intended something else with your post. But, you just supported the conservative opinion that liberal bias is something to be concerned about when reading or listening in the media. Kudos to you!

Christine

[Death Wizard]

Bolding and replying:

But the "liberal media are a bunch of idiots" refrain gets a little old.

So does hearing the whining about conservatives directed at our desire not hold what you say above our own ideals/thoughts/values. That we wish to hold our own of the same is not something you should even waste your time thinking about, much less all the whining.

some of the most knowledgeable and educated people around. But they do tend to be liberal. And they also tend to do things in staunch defense of our first amendment rights, which also tends to annoy others.

Our variance of opinion does not mean that we don't hold amendment rights in high regard. But, perhaps we hold a wish for that right to be used for the greater good, rather than for a personal agenda or slams. As you said, most are liberals (and I am going on your statement only). Thus, the stuff in the media is presented and slanted by that view and staunchly (to use another of your words). You support the conservative opinion that what we read cannot be trusted beyond the liberal point of view or agenda of the person doing the writing. Which is not a good light for you to shed your buddies in. Surely, you intended something else with your post. But, you just supported the conservative opinion that liberal bias is something to be concerned about when reading or listening in the media. Kudos to you!

Christine

As you say, the conservative opinion.

[Death Wizard]

There is a difference between conservatives claiming that the national media has a liberal bent (true) -- and open-minded people claiming that the national media is ineffective, stupid, bad at their jobs, etc.

One thing I rarely hear from conservatives is this: Where do you think our nation would be if the national media didn't exist?

[tiny]

I smell the odor of mass generalization.

[willfulone]

As you say, the conservative opinion.

No as a reader who read your post. Political bent has nothing to do with being able to read. Surely, you know that.

Christine

[willfulone]

There is a difference between conservatives claiming that the national media has a liberal bent (true) -- and open-minded people claiming that the national media is ineffective, stupid, bad at their jobs, etc.

One thing I rarely hear from conservatives is this: Where do you think our nation would be if the national media didn't exist?


Huh? Did you read what you wrote? Maybe you THINK you are saying things in a certain way and the way you intend. But, you are not. You state up there ^ there is a difference. Okay. Fine. Look again at that which you stated:

1. Conservatives claim national media has a liberal bent and you state that is true in your opinion. Okay that is the first part of your comparison.

2. Then you go on to say that is the difference from OPEN-MINDED people claiming the other you stated. Clearly, you mean to say CLOSE MINDED people are the ones who claim it is ineffective and stupid, etc. Not open minded. For by saying an open-minded person has reviewed and come to the conclusion that the media is ineffectual - you AGAIN support the position that (as related to conservatives) we are right with that open-mindedness look/revew in seeing the media the way we do. As biased. And with an agenda.

Thus, you perhaps should think that I maybe made my prior post reply based upon what you really said rather than for my being conservative. And I said it supported the conservative opinion for that is how it reads in actuality.

Maybe you should review before you hit send. I realize we all make mistakes and do not convey our thoughts clearly all the time. But, you cannot debate against someone when you are making their points for them.

Christine

[willfulone]

Oh wait - I GET your meaning. You mean to say that ALL conservatives are closed minded.

Yeah - you must be conservative then. For you to make such statement - you are closed minded.

[Joe270]

The generalities are causing some issues here, folks. This is why it's best to not use generalities.

It's probably a good idea to avoid using 'you' and 'your' as well, because this thread is getting a bit too personal.

Just a gentle reminder.

[Bartholomew]

Conservatives aren't all closed minded-- but they are typically resistant to new ideas. It's built into the word by which they call themselves.

Dictionary.com -- Conservative
"Disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change."

"Traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness."

Now, if conservatives were all conservative about the constitution, but open minded about the nebulous matrices of government surrounding it, I'd be one. Instead, they tend to be conservative about religion and moral values. I opine that that these subjects deserve little place in the political battlefield, and I wish conservatives as a whole would find new subjects by which to define themselves.

[willfulone]

(A) Tending to preserve; preservative; inclined to keep up existing institutions and customs; opposed to radical changes or innovation; moderate, cautious.

(N) One whose principles, methods, and habits are moderate and cautious; one who avoids extremes. an advocate of political caution.

I looked up several definitions and sites. No where did I find that ideas are resisted. And, I suppose one could say that caution implies resistence to such. Or that upholding traditions means resistent to ideas. I do not see it so though. I think progression and advancement requires new ideas/changes. However, I can state, I DO think a ton before making a choice away from my conservative ideas. Which, I have done and will (likely) do again (take an opinion outside party lines).

But, I would never dismiss an idea simply for my being conservative and the idea not.

And, I know you were not saying so Bart. Just continuing in the vein of your thought and adding my own.

Christine

[Bartholomew]

(A) Tending to preserve; preservative; inclined to keep up existing institutions and customs; opposed to radical changes or innovation; moderate, cautious.

(N) One whose principles, methods, and habits are moderate and cautious; one who avoids extremes. an advocate of political caution.

I looked up several definitions and sites. No where did I find that ideas are resisted. And, I suppose one could say that caution implies resistence to such. Or that upholding traditions means resistent to ideas. I do not see it so though. I think progression and advancement requires new ideas/changes. However, I can state, I DO think a ton before making a choice away from my conservative ideas. Which, I have done and will (likely) do again (take an opinion outside party lines).

But, I would never dismiss an idea simply for my being conservative and the idea not.

And, I know you were not saying so Bart. Just continuing in the vein of your thought and adding my own.

Christine

I'd like to point out that when I say conservative, I do not mean Republican. I am referring to a point above and on the positive side of the X line of our political grid, where fascism is the extreme right and communism is the extreme left.

I imagine that a LOT of conservatives are voting things other than Republican in this climate.

I think there is a lot of merit to being slow to change something that already works, and a lot to be suspicious of when someone wants to change something that works in order to "improve it."

On the other side of that coin, though, when something clearly does not work -- or, more likely, has broken down over the years -- conservatives, by nature, are still slow to change it. And liberals are too quick to change it to something untested.

No political ideals are perfect, because the people they affect are not made in cookie cutters, nor are they robots. They're human beings, unpredictable in every way.