this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
56 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19233 readers
2736 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Over 200 American outlets under USA Today parent company Gannett will not back candidates “in presidential or national races,” according to USA Today.

“None of the USA TODAY Network publications are endorsing in presidential or national races,” a spokesperson for USA Today, Lark-Marie Antón, said in an email to The Hill on Monday.

top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres 31 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That’s the thing about fascist dictatorships. Billionaires think they want one and imagine themselves being one of the powerful few oligarchs. Then, they fall out of a window because dictators don’t like potential rivals.

[–] IchNichtenLichten 4 points 1 month ago

Then, they fall out of a window because dictators don’t like potential rivals.

This is typically true but in this case all they have to do is mention Trump's "big manly hands" or call him the best amateur, no - professional golfer the world has ever seen and then they get offered a cabinet position.

[–] Makeitstop 31 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Why are we doing this? Because we believe America’s future is decided locally – one race at a time,” Antón continued. “And with more than 200 publications across the nation, our public service is to provide readers with the facts that matter and the trusted information they need to make informed decisions.”

Local elections are important, but I'm pretty sure that the one race that's going to have the biggest impact on America's future is the presidential race. You'd think think they'd have something to say on the topic if it was America's future they were thinking about rather than just their own.

[–] just_another_person 20 points 1 month ago

The statement basically says "we're corporate" and tries to pass the buck. They own publications in various places around the country, some of which are clearly MAGAt deep.

They don't want the parent company to get a barrage of angry psychos boycotting their local papers and affecting their bottom line, so they're forcing all of their entities to fall in line. Same shit as Bezos and the other BilBo Club asshats.

[–] dragontamer 23 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

So yeah. LA Times, Washington Post and now Gannett conglomerate all made the same decision at roughly the same time.

This was preplanned.

I don't think this media takeover strategy is going to go as they hope. This makes the Democrats cause more real and heightens the stakes.

[–] billiam0202 11 points 1 month ago

Well we did "War in Europe", "Genocide against Middle Eastern people", "terrorize the LGTBQ community", and "global pandemic" on our 20th Century redux speedrun, so I guess we're checking off "Business Plot" now.

[–] randon31415 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

But isn't Gannett a conservative company? Is this good news, like if Fox News or OANN says they won't endorse a candidate?

[–] dragontamer 19 points 1 month ago

The endorsements come from the writers, not from leadership.

If a conservative owner owns a liberal set of writers, muzzling your writers and stopping endorsements is to the conservatives advantage.

[–] themeatbridge 13 points 1 month ago

It's bad news. Gannet is a news conglomerate, but is run locally in each market. Each market has an editorial team, and each would like to independently endorse candidates. Whether they endorse Trump or Harris or Putin for president, they should be able to do that without interference from the corporate overlords. Oppression isn't good when the oppressed disagree with you.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

I briefly worked for them befofore covid. it was like for a few months though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You cant vote out a capitalist, even when they go full fascist. Through the divine right of the dollar he alone is dictator of everyonw he pays and he still owns the entirety of the profit. What the plan to stop these guys from making every US election have at least one fascist candidate in it?

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker -2 points 1 month ago

The Hill - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Hill:

Wiki: reliable - The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication's opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. The publication's contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources.


MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America


Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://thehill.com/homenews/media/4958134-300-gannett-outlets-not-endorsing-presidential-national-races/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support