Yes, I think I know what you're talking about. I can't say I'm as affected by it as you are, because I do not read said newspaper, but I understand where people might take issue. But, if we're indeed talking about the same thing--I have no opinion.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What’s on your mind?
- Thread starter Gutwrench
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't play console games either, because I don't own a console. No space for one, in my dorm or at home. I don't play anything really, save for the occasional (maybe once a month) Forza Horizon session.
A few people were trying to convince me to get Minecraft, but I honestly have zero interest or time for it. I also don't want to throw any more money at games. Think the $100 I've spent on FH5 is enough, especially given I play it so rarely.
What I would ABSOLUTELY throw money towards is traveling next summer. I'd like to do that.
The newspaper of which I am speaking -- rather, writing -- is one which is both local to the area in which I live and also focuses on situations of national and international interest, so there are going to be repercussions not just locally but, yes, nationally as well, given that they have subscribers around this country and also some ex-pats who live abroad along with those from other countries who are interested in following US news.
Last edited:
Same here. "Democracy Dies in Darkness" perhaps should be rewritten "Democracy Dies in the Shadow of Billionaries".
Think I will be switching my subscription money to The Economist. They so far seem immune to entertainment masquerading as news.
If I recall correctly (from reading Katharine Graham’s autobiography), wasn’t the paper’s longtime policy to not make any endorsements? So the change may be a return to former practice…but the origin of the decision, assuming some of the reports I’ve read are accurate, is very disturbing. Same goes, IMHO, for the West Coast paper that decided not to publish an endorsement.
Yes, the whole "Democracy Dies in Darkness" slogan has absolutely taken on a whole new, even darker meaning....
At least for right now I will hang on to my subscription a while longer, just watch what happens over time and then make a decision. This whole situation is very disturbing, though, isn't it?
Yes, prior to Jimmy Carter's running for and then being elected to the office of President of the US, the paper did not endorse any candidates for office. Once they'd begun it with Jimmy Carter, then they continued to carry it on through the following years.
And, yes, KaliYoni, you've nailed it: definitely this whole thing is disturbing give how the decision was made, and in the end solely in the hands of the owner of the paper. For whatever reasons he chose not to heed his editorial board's recommendation. Instead he ruled out the idea of any endorsement whatsoever this particular time and moving on into the future. Yes, the implications of this are quite disturbing and that is why there has been a massive outpour of dismayed opinions from subscribers as well as from other sources.
I haven't really followed the news regarding the West Coast newspaper which took very similar action, except to note that again there has been a huge uproar over this from their subscribers and others. Each paper is definitely taking a stance anyway, which actually then is conveying its own message, even though they are not formally endorsing any particular candidate.
Last time they didn't endorse was 36 years ago. I can certainly see the argument for a paper not to do endorsements, but I think if that was their decision, it should do one and say this will be their last. Doing it in the shadow of a threat just doesn't look good.
On my mind is the clock change tonight and the inevitable darker mornings.
Then the utterly depressing arriving home and leaving in the dark for the next few months.
I’m already fed up with the colder and wetter weather.
What a cherry thought to start my weekend with!
Then the utterly depressing arriving home and leaving in the dark for the next few months.
I’m already fed up with the colder and wetter weather.
What a cherry thought to start my weekend with!
Today, (well, tonight) is one of the days of the year that I dislike the most, for the very reason that you have stated.
I loathe winter.
@Clix Pix,
@rm5: To state that you have "no opinion" on this matter, is not nearly good enough.
Citizenship comes with responsibilities, as well as rights, (if you were a student of mine, I would say the exact same thing to you); in any case, this is something you need to do some thinking about.
To my mind, given the wider context, this announcement is deeply disturbing, and profoundly unsettling, and strikes me as nothing less than an abdication of taking - indeed a refusal to take - any sort of ethical (let alone political) stance or position.
@rm5: To state that you have "no opinion" on this matter, is not nearly good enough.
Citizenship comes with responsibilities, as well as rights, (if you were a student of mine, I would say the exact same thing to you); in any case, this is something you need to do some thinking about.
Saw another former academic colleague for coffee this morning, - my second coffee in two days with a former (much liked and deeply respected) colleague; two professors in two days, both offering good coffee, and better conversation.
Dashed through the market and made a few swift purchases (olives, Gorgonzola, cherry tomatoes, sushi, pesto), and earlier, treated myself to some double cream in M&S.
Dashed through the market and made a few swift purchases (olives, Gorgonzola, cherry tomatoes, sushi, pesto), and earlier, treated myself to some double cream in M&S.
Indeed. But today here at least has been a delightfully sunny day. Just back from a rather pleasant walk in the woods with my camera.
I would rather not get kicked off here, so to me, that is about all I could say. I am not sure what leads you to say that I'm not thinking enough about these issues, because that's not true.
I guess I shouldn't be engaging in these things if this is the result.
Last edited:
There's nothing wrong with avoiding getting into it on this topic. I have a lot I could say here, but we're really not supposed to be discussing these things on this forum, for better or for worse.
Where and when a person decides to share an opinion is their choice and certainly is good enough. Perhaps the tone was unintended but your comment is easily interpreted as preachy and condescending.
I also found this upsetting so I took action and cancelled my online subscription.
Perhaps you could have phrased, or expressed, your post differently, in that case.
Nonetheless, had you been in my classroom when I taught at university, I would have made my stance clear (and I did so, when students - of politics and history, no less! - attempted the false equivalence of "they are all the same", or, "I have no opinion".) This is lazy intellectually, and - to my mind - is an ethically irresponsible position to attempt to hold.
Now, granted, your actual opinion is your own, - there is nothing wrong with stating that you would prefer not to engage in such discussions - but this is something upon which - if you believe yourself to be a citizen, and believe that citizenship involves responsibilities as well as rights - you must inform yourself, not least, in order to have an informed opinion.
There is a distinct difference between saying (writing) "I would prefer not to discuss this matter on this forum", or, "I would rather not suffer a reprimand as we cannot freely discuss or debate such matters", and writing, "I have no opinion."
If you (genuinely) have no opinion, then, say - and write - nothing.
However, given the context, I do regard it as an utter abrogation, and an abdication - a complete abdication - of civic responsibilities and a refusal to take an ethical position when one writes (or says) that "I have no opinion".
In any case, I have observed, monitored, supervised and reported on (for bodies - international organisations - such as the OSCE, and the EU) almost 30 elections - I am regarded as an elections expert - across three continents over the past quarter of a century - and I take such matters exceptionally seriously.
Last edited:
Same thing happened to the Salt Lake Tribune, they went nonprofit to save the hemorrhaging, laid off most of the investigative reporters and gave their jobs to the sports writers (shades of high school!), more than doubled the price, and went from 7, to 6, to 2 papers/week.
I had to drop them after 28 years, they called me and offered one year at half-price, so I'm hanging with them for now.
But why? How does the LA Times and Washington Post’s editorial page decision on this impact the quality of their stories on the other pages?
Because of demonstrated managerial interference at the newspaper, I can no longer trust the objectiveness of their reporting.