All Democrats? Even the D&C threw in a token Republican.
Mon, 10/27/2008 - 12:49 — Rottenchester
In fairness to the News, two of the four (Higgins and Slaughter) are safe seats (I think Louise doesn't even have an opponent), so it's really NY-26 and NY-29 that matter.
These endorsements made sense, though, in terms of how they were written. That's the important thing, regardless of who is endorsed.
Mon, 10/27/2008 - 12:03 — LV vet (not verified)
As a student of journalism, I hope that it is not about throwing in a token anything, but that is what it appears that Gannett did, In the hopes that he will grow into the position? Don't know who sat on that panel, but it makes one wonder about their qualifications.
Try reading the paper regularly and you'll *really* start to wonder about their qualifications.
Mon, 10/27/2008 - 16:42 — ElmerJK (not verified)
You can study journalism all you want, and I'm sure all the people on the Buffalo News' editorial board are all qualified, but they are also people with their own individual biases. Also, a newsroom is prone to group think.
Isn't the important thing what they wrote, though? I can certainly imagine reading an endorsement of a candidate I didn't like (say Kuhl) and thinking it was still well-reasoned. I set myself the task of writing a Kuhl endorsement that was more convincing than the D&C's. It wasn't all that hard.
Mon, 10/27/2008 - 17:55 — ElmerJK (not verified)
You are correct - a good well motivated writer can write a good editorial on anything, even if it isn't something they believe in. Every candidate has some strong points, and it is up to the writer to gather facts and write a strong piece.
I was commenting above more on who they pick and not on how it is written.
Comments
All Democrats? Even the D&C threw in a token Republican.
In fairness to the News, two of the four (Higgins and Slaughter) are safe seats (I think Louise doesn't even have an opponent), so it's really NY-26 and NY-29 that matter.
These endorsements made sense, though, in terms of how they were written. That's the important thing, regardless of who is endorsed.
As a student of journalism, I hope that it is not about throwing in a token anything, but that is what it appears that Gannett did, In the hopes that he will grow into the position? Don't know who sat on that panel, but it makes one wonder about their qualifications.
Try reading the paper regularly and you'll *really* start to wonder about their qualifications.
You can study journalism all you want, and I'm sure all the people on the Buffalo News' editorial board are all qualified, but they are also people with their own individual biases. Also, a newsroom is prone to group think.
Isn't the important thing what they wrote, though? I can certainly imagine reading an endorsement of a candidate I didn't like (say Kuhl) and thinking it was still well-reasoned. I set myself the task of writing a Kuhl endorsement that was more convincing than the D&C's. It wasn't all that hard.
You are correct - a good well motivated writer can write a good editorial on anything, even if it isn't something they believe in. Every candidate has some strong points, and it is up to the writer to gather facts and write a strong piece.
I was commenting above more on who they pick and not on how it is written.