Montana’s Largest Newspaper Admits “We Were Wrong” on Obama | Fix This Nation .com
Montana’s Largest Newspaper Admits “We Were Wrong” on Obama | Fix This Nation .com
– Montana’s largest newspaper – has admitted that they were off the
mark in supporting Barack Obama and have been proven wrong by the last
six years of history.
As part of a June 27th editorial, the paper said, “Sometimes, you have to admit you’re wrong. And, we were wrong.”
An unusual move for a newspaper to make, the Gazette’s
editors felt they had no choice but to apologize for endorsing a young
candidate who has been at the center of several scandals (Benghazi, the
IRS, Iraq) as well as a President who has done little to make progress
on his most important campaign promises. The latter is actually great
news for anyone who doesn’t want to see the country slide into a liberal
swamp, but it’s understandable that the Gazette would not see things this way.
Even the right’s most prominent columnists rarely wrap Obama’s
failures in such a succinct bow. The paper cites the NSA spying
controversy, the Bergdahl fiasco, the VA scandal, the lack of promised
transparency, and the failures in Iraq as the reasons for withdrawing
support.
Obviously, this falls pretty comfortably in the “better late than
never” category, but it’s still a blessing to see people in the media
come to their senses about this guy. It might be unfortunate that this
wake-up call couldn’t have happened two years ago, but I guess you have
to take what you can get. In any case, the same journalists that have
abandoned the Hope and Change Train will be jumping on the next
socialist social climber that comes along.
Of course, the Gazette probably doesn’t have much to
apologize for in the first place. The state went to McCain in 2008, it
went to Romney in 2012, and it will probably go to the Republican
candidate in 2016. Montana is a red state through and through, with
Republicans enjoying a 14-point percentage advantage according to a 2012
Gallup poll. And that even begs the real question: how much do
newspaper endorsements mean in the first place? Furthermore, should they
even be making endorsements to begin with?
Newspaper endorsements have tradition in their favor, but they date
from a time when people expected their journalists to have a point of
view. In the last half-century or so, the public has forced newspapers
to take a more balanced approach to the news, eschewing yellow
journalism and endless polemic writing for the plain facts. Of course,
the idea of bias ever leaving journalism entirely is a joke, one that
has become even more hilarious in the advent of a few major corporations
controlling most of the media. Still, the idea of a newspaper – even
one that draws laughter when they claim to be unbiased – throwing their
support behind a candidate is archaic and unsettling. Certainly, they
have the right to do so. It’s just a matter of whether they should.- See more at:
http://www.fixthisnation.com/conservative-breaking-news/montanas-largest-newspaper-admits-we-were-wrong-on-obama/#sthash.bNLtRelk.dpuf
– Montana’s largest newspaper – has admitted that they were off the
mark in supporting Barack Obama and have been proven wrong by the last
six years of history.
As part of a June 27th editorial, the paper said, “Sometimes, you have to admit you’re wrong. And, we were wrong.”
An unusual move for a newspaper to make, the Gazette’s
editors felt they had no choice but to apologize for endorsing a young
candidate who has been at the center of several scandals (Benghazi, the
IRS, Iraq) as well as a President who has done little to make progress
on his most important campaign promises. The latter is actually great
news for anyone who doesn’t want to see the country slide into a liberal
swamp, but it’s understandable that the Gazette would not see things this way.
Even the right’s most prominent columnists rarely wrap Obama’s
failures in such a succinct bow. The paper cites the NSA spying
controversy, the Bergdahl fiasco, the VA scandal, the lack of promised
transparency, and the failures in Iraq as the reasons for withdrawing
support.
Obviously, this falls pretty comfortably in the “better late than
never” category, but it’s still a blessing to see people in the media
come to their senses about this guy. It might be unfortunate that this
wake-up call couldn’t have happened two years ago, but I guess you have
to take what you can get. In any case, the same journalists that have
abandoned the Hope and Change Train will be jumping on the next
socialist social climber that comes along.
Of course, the Gazette probably doesn’t have much to
apologize for in the first place. The state went to McCain in 2008, it
went to Romney in 2012, and it will probably go to the Republican
candidate in 2016. Montana is a red state through and through, with
Republicans enjoying a 14-point percentage advantage according to a 2012
Gallup poll. And that even begs the real question: how much do
newspaper endorsements mean in the first place? Furthermore, should they
even be making endorsements to begin with?
Newspaper endorsements have tradition in their favor, but they date
from a time when people expected their journalists to have a point of
view. In the last half-century or so, the public has forced newspapers
to take a more balanced approach to the news, eschewing yellow
journalism and endless polemic writing for the plain facts. Of course,
the idea of bias ever leaving journalism entirely is a joke, one that
has become even more hilarious in the advent of a few major corporations
controlling most of the media. Still, the idea of a newspaper – even
one that draws laughter when they claim to be unbiased – throwing their
support behind a candidate is archaic and unsettling. Certainly, they
have the right to do so. It’s just a matter of whether they should.- See more at:
http://www.fixthisnation.com/conservative-breaking-news/montanas-largest-newspaper-admits-we-were-wrong-on-obama/#sthash.bNLtRelk.dpuf
787
151
13
Reddit2
1960
2987
After endorsing him for President in 2008, the Billings-based Gazette151
13
Reddit2
1960
2987
– Montana’s largest newspaper – has admitted that they were off the
mark in supporting Barack Obama and have been proven wrong by the last
six years of history.
As part of a June 27th editorial, the paper said, “Sometimes, you have to admit you’re wrong. And, we were wrong.”
An unusual move for a newspaper to make, the Gazette’s
editors felt they had no choice but to apologize for endorsing a young
candidate who has been at the center of several scandals (Benghazi, the
IRS, Iraq) as well as a President who has done little to make progress
on his most important campaign promises. The latter is actually great
news for anyone who doesn’t want to see the country slide into a liberal
swamp, but it’s understandable that the Gazette would not see things this way.
Even the right’s most prominent columnists rarely wrap Obama’s
failures in such a succinct bow. The paper cites the NSA spying
controversy, the Bergdahl fiasco, the VA scandal, the lack of promised
transparency, and the failures in Iraq as the reasons for withdrawing
support.
Obviously, this falls pretty comfortably in the “better late than
never” category, but it’s still a blessing to see people in the media
come to their senses about this guy. It might be unfortunate that this
wake-up call couldn’t have happened two years ago, but I guess you have
to take what you can get. In any case, the same journalists that have
abandoned the Hope and Change Train will be jumping on the next
socialist social climber that comes along.
apologize for in the first place. The state went to McCain in 2008, it
went to Romney in 2012, and it will probably go to the Republican
candidate in 2016. Montana is a red state through and through, with
Republicans enjoying a 14-point percentage advantage according to a 2012
Gallup poll. And that even begs the real question: how much do
newspaper endorsements mean in the first place? Furthermore, should they
even be making endorsements to begin with?
Newspaper endorsements have tradition in their favor, but they date
from a time when people expected their journalists to have a point of
view. In the last half-century or so, the public has forced newspapers
to take a more balanced approach to the news, eschewing yellow
journalism and endless polemic writing for the plain facts. Of course,
the idea of bias ever leaving journalism entirely is a joke, one that
has become even more hilarious in the advent of a few major corporations
controlling most of the media. Still, the idea of a newspaper – even
one that draws laughter when they claim to be unbiased – throwing their
support behind a candidate is archaic and unsettling. Certainly, they
have the right to do so. It’s just a matter of whether they should.
http://www.fixthisnation.com/conservative-breaking-news/montanas-largest-newspaper-admits-we-were-wrong-on-obama/#sthash.bNLtRelk.dpuf
787
151
13
Reddit2
1960
2987
After endorsing him for President in 2008, the Billings-based Gazette151
13
Reddit2
1960
2987
– Montana’s largest newspaper – has admitted that they were off the
mark in supporting Barack Obama and have been proven wrong by the last
six years of history.
As part of a June 27th editorial, the paper said, “Sometimes, you have to admit you’re wrong. And, we were wrong.”
An unusual move for a newspaper to make, the Gazette’s
editors felt they had no choice but to apologize for endorsing a young
candidate who has been at the center of several scandals (Benghazi, the
IRS, Iraq) as well as a President who has done little to make progress
on his most important campaign promises. The latter is actually great
news for anyone who doesn’t want to see the country slide into a liberal
swamp, but it’s understandable that the Gazette would not see things this way.
Even the right’s most prominent columnists rarely wrap Obama’s
failures in such a succinct bow. The paper cites the NSA spying
controversy, the Bergdahl fiasco, the VA scandal, the lack of promised
transparency, and the failures in Iraq as the reasons for withdrawing
support.
Obviously, this falls pretty comfortably in the “better late than
never” category, but it’s still a blessing to see people in the media
come to their senses about this guy. It might be unfortunate that this
wake-up call couldn’t have happened two years ago, but I guess you have
to take what you can get. In any case, the same journalists that have
abandoned the Hope and Change Train will be jumping on the next
socialist social climber that comes along.
apologize for in the first place. The state went to McCain in 2008, it
went to Romney in 2012, and it will probably go to the Republican
candidate in 2016. Montana is a red state through and through, with
Republicans enjoying a 14-point percentage advantage according to a 2012
Gallup poll. And that even begs the real question: how much do
newspaper endorsements mean in the first place? Furthermore, should they
even be making endorsements to begin with?
Newspaper endorsements have tradition in their favor, but they date
from a time when people expected their journalists to have a point of
view. In the last half-century or so, the public has forced newspapers
to take a more balanced approach to the news, eschewing yellow
journalism and endless polemic writing for the plain facts. Of course,
the idea of bias ever leaving journalism entirely is a joke, one that
has become even more hilarious in the advent of a few major corporations
controlling most of the media. Still, the idea of a newspaper – even
one that draws laughter when they claim to be unbiased – throwing their
support behind a candidate is archaic and unsettling. Certainly, they
have the right to do so. It’s just a matter of whether they should.
http://www.fixthisnation.com/conservative-breaking-news/montanas-largest-newspaper-admits-we-were-wrong-on-obama/#sthash.bNLtRelk.dpuf
posted by ATTILA at 8:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home