Thanks, I updated it. I’d also like to say that I wouldn’t normally post this. It seems too political. Given the relevance of the previous story about the Washington Post though, this feels worth of submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41949297
I think the humor in this column is funny, but I can’t help but think this only highlights the incredible bias in journalism today, and makes the employees in the newsroom and elsewhere look like amateurs. The act of writing this is itself taking the privilege of injecting one’s personal political opinion (for example see the bits about her pregnancy and future child) into their job - which is not appropriate in any workplace let alone a profession that is meant to be neutral and objective.
But I also find this type of statement below, implying Trump will end elections, to be hyperbolic fear mongering and propaganda.
> But if I were the paper, I would be a little embarrassed that it has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to make our presidential endorsement. I will spare you the suspense: I am endorsing Kamala Harris for president, because I like elections and want to keep having them.
I don’t think this line is meant to be humor, but is instead repetition of a talking point. However, no rational person thinks this is true, and the constant alarmism about “democracy” went from interesting to tiring to an embarrassment very quickly. Especially when in the same party we don’t get a chance to vote for better candidates that were available earlier. The whole “democracy will end” thing is a distraction. Why aren’t we talking about things that are real like the economy or geopolitics or nuclear energy or whatever? Why do we keep coming back to fear mongering?
There is much more in here that is also misleading and ironic - like talking about how Trump may go after political enemies while Trump and others like Elon Musk face rampant lawfare, or talking about shutting down free speech when one side has supported rampant censorship on online platforms, and so on.
I think the lack of endorsements would be preferable and I would like to see newspapers write strong cases for and against all candidates instead. Let readers decide. Inform them in a balanced way. Don’t try to fight for your preferred outcome. That would be a better form of journalism. And for the record, I’ve paid for WaPo for years and am still bitter about Hillary losing.
> which is not appropriate in any workplace let alone a profession that is meant to be neutral and objective.
It's an opinion column. People all over write politically-charged and personal writings that get selected for publication, and this is a valid and normal outlet to express it in.
If their Middle East or political correspondents wanted to offer a dissenting view, the platform is there. They don't. The conversation is already had, in effect both of the candidates have already had a shot at office and demonstrated what their policy is through their actions. The fatigue over American politics is real and this election cycle isn't offering unique or novel viewpoints from fresh candidates.
> The fatigue over American politics is real and this election cycle isn't offering unique or novel viewpoints from fresh candidates.
The fatigue is real and it feels like campaigns begin as soon as the previous ones end. Like one continuous war. It also feels like the rest of life is somehow minimized by this. Energy goes to the political stuff and it becomes a part of people’s identity, instead of being something on the side. Not sure how to describe it accurately or how we escape that. Is it just an addiction?
If the title includes the name of the site, please take it out, because the site name will be displayed after the link. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Thanks, I updated it. I’d also like to say that I wouldn’t normally post this. It seems too political. Given the relevance of the previous story about the Washington Post though, this feels worth of submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41949297
I think the humor in this column is funny, but I can’t help but think this only highlights the incredible bias in journalism today, and makes the employees in the newsroom and elsewhere look like amateurs. The act of writing this is itself taking the privilege of injecting one’s personal political opinion (for example see the bits about her pregnancy and future child) into their job - which is not appropriate in any workplace let alone a profession that is meant to be neutral and objective.
But I also find this type of statement below, implying Trump will end elections, to be hyperbolic fear mongering and propaganda.
> But if I were the paper, I would be a little embarrassed that it has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to make our presidential endorsement. I will spare you the suspense: I am endorsing Kamala Harris for president, because I like elections and want to keep having them.
I don’t think this line is meant to be humor, but is instead repetition of a talking point. However, no rational person thinks this is true, and the constant alarmism about “democracy” went from interesting to tiring to an embarrassment very quickly. Especially when in the same party we don’t get a chance to vote for better candidates that were available earlier. The whole “democracy will end” thing is a distraction. Why aren’t we talking about things that are real like the economy or geopolitics or nuclear energy or whatever? Why do we keep coming back to fear mongering?
There is much more in here that is also misleading and ironic - like talking about how Trump may go after political enemies while Trump and others like Elon Musk face rampant lawfare, or talking about shutting down free speech when one side has supported rampant censorship on online platforms, and so on.
I think the lack of endorsements would be preferable and I would like to see newspapers write strong cases for and against all candidates instead. Let readers decide. Inform them in a balanced way. Don’t try to fight for your preferred outcome. That would be a better form of journalism. And for the record, I’ve paid for WaPo for years and am still bitter about Hillary losing.
> which is not appropriate in any workplace let alone a profession that is meant to be neutral and objective.
It's an opinion column. People all over write politically-charged and personal writings that get selected for publication, and this is a valid and normal outlet to express it in.
The ultimate irony is that anyone, not just a WaPo employee, could submit a high-profile endorsement too: https://helpcenter.washingtonpost.com/hc/en-us/articles/1150...
If their Middle East or political correspondents wanted to offer a dissenting view, the platform is there. They don't. The conversation is already had, in effect both of the candidates have already had a shot at office and demonstrated what their policy is through their actions. The fatigue over American politics is real and this election cycle isn't offering unique or novel viewpoints from fresh candidates.
> The fatigue over American politics is real and this election cycle isn't offering unique or novel viewpoints from fresh candidates.
The fatigue is real and it feels like campaigns begin as soon as the previous ones end. Like one continuous war. It also feels like the rest of life is somehow minimized by this. Energy goes to the political stuff and it becomes a part of people’s identity, instead of being something on the side. Not sure how to describe it accurately or how we escape that. Is it just an addiction?