I agree that in the era we're in the newspaper endorsement is, perhaps, dated. What I DO have an issue with is that during what sure feels like the most contentious election in the history of elections, two major dailies who - for as long as most can remember - decided less-than a month before the election to NOT do something they'd done forever (insert Specs from "The Sandlot" voice here)!?! If this is something that was being contemplated by the publishers/owners then announce it at the beginning of the election cycle or at the beginning of the calendar year for the election. It provides readers with advanced notice, does not put your Editorial Boards in awkward positions, and largely avoids the backlash they're both feeling now from those who feel there was ill-intent behind the decision.
I agree with the point you're getting at: That people these days aren't looking for newspapers to quote-unquote "tell them who to vote for" -- as you suggest, they readers already know who they're voting for. They're demanding that newspapers declare that they're on the same "side" as them. Which is so absurd and childish. I found the recent hysterics over the L.A. Times and WaPo laughable. It was like a giant chorus of babies crying. "Tell me your perspective is as closed-off and slanted as mine or I'm unsubscribing and boycotting, wahhhhhh!" Wow, like "We're gonna SHOW them!" People's energy is really... misplaced.
I agree that in the era we're in the newspaper endorsement is, perhaps, dated. What I DO have an issue with is that during what sure feels like the most contentious election in the history of elections, two major dailies who - for as long as most can remember - decided less-than a month before the election to NOT do something they'd done forever (insert Specs from "The Sandlot" voice here)!?! If this is something that was being contemplated by the publishers/owners then announce it at the beginning of the election cycle or at the beginning of the calendar year for the election. It provides readers with advanced notice, does not put your Editorial Boards in awkward positions, and largely avoids the backlash they're both feeling now from those who feel there was ill-intent behind the decision.
I agree with the point you're getting at: That people these days aren't looking for newspapers to quote-unquote "tell them who to vote for" -- as you suggest, they readers already know who they're voting for. They're demanding that newspapers declare that they're on the same "side" as them. Which is so absurd and childish. I found the recent hysterics over the L.A. Times and WaPo laughable. It was like a giant chorus of babies crying. "Tell me your perspective is as closed-off and slanted as mine or I'm unsubscribing and boycotting, wahhhhhh!" Wow, like "We're gonna SHOW them!" People's energy is really... misplaced.