Dayton Daily News endorses Kerry

[Bossy Monkey]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/N/NEWSPAPER_ENDORSEMENTS?SITE=SCCOL&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
along with NYT, Boston Globe, Minneapolis Star-Tribune (so far this evening)
Bush picks up the Omaha World-Herald and the coveted Carlsbad Current-Argus.

Daily News requires registration to see their stories; they didn't show the endorsement as a headline on the editorial page (or the front one) though there was a link for endorsements (that brought up the registration page)

[Kukesa]

1. Hooray for the Gem City! What terrific news! n/t

[xray s]

2. who did they endorse in 2000?

[DemFromMem]

3. Gore

[gmoney]

4. Good News. I was concerned...

In other races, the DDN keeps endorsing these terrible corrupt repukes on the basis of "well, they're already in office, so we won't have to retrain them, so why not?"

Assbags like Jon Husted and John Boehner... I thought for sure they'd back Bush on the same non-principle.

[Philostopher]

5. I was a little concerned, too.

They do generally back the incumbent in state and local races -- they've already endorsed Mike 'Goodhair Jr.' Turner in the congressional race. He's a Bush*-sucking pile of pork barrel, he's supported Bush* 97% of the time, and yet they endorse Kerry in the White House race.

But they did endorse Gore, and I'm sure they endorsed Clinton in '92 and '96. The founder of Cox Publishing was a progressive who was an Ohio senator back in the early 1900s. Had they endorsed Bush*, I suspect he'd have risen from his grave to smite somebody.

Boy, won't the FReeper locals be pissed, though?

You were right, Angry Old Dem -- you told me you figured they'd endorse Kerry!

[VolcanoJen]

6. HOORAY!!!! A proud day to be from Dayton!!

Daytonians, show your Kerry support to the media this Tuesday! Be Loud and Proud!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[AngryOldDem]

7. This is NOT an endorsement; it's a debate

I'm speaking as a former copy editor, in particular the DDN editorial page copy editor. Please note that while there is a lengthy editorial endorsement of John Kerry, it has been effectively undercut by the DDN by its turning over the entire op-ed page to Bush. This is not anunequivocal endorsement; this is a debate. It serves no purpose other than continue the DDN's rather schizophrenic stance on this election, which has been going on all year.

The top half (four columns, complete with a file photo of Bush looking presidential) has Rob Portman on direct rebuttal to the endorsement. It can be read here:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/opinion/content/opinion/...

The bottom half, also four columns, is a George Will screed on the economy, which ends with this statement: "A second Bush term, involving tax as well as welfare reform, might be as creative domestically as was Wilson's first term." As usual, Will weighs in with more invective against liberals.

Finally, almost the entire length of the remaining two columns is given over to five pro-Bush letters to the editor. While there are also five Kerry letters at the bottom of the editorial page, in column inches, it is clear who gets the larger say. You CANNOT tell me that these were all the Kerry letters the DDN has.

And, to those of us who think such editorial judgment stinks, we have editor Jeff Bruce explaining why the paper is watering down what should be a decisive and unequivocal stand for Kerry: In short, "the views of this newspaper are not universally held." Jeff, that can be said during ANY election year on ANY issue.

While I am not saying that Bush supporters should not have their chance to respond, you don't have that response on the SAME DAY you are making an important editorial statement, as is your responsibility to do as a member of the press.

The subliminal message is clear, and while I may be in the minority here, I am NOT impressed.

ON EDIT: To save you all the trouble, here is the direct link to the endorsement:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/opinion/content/opinion/daily/1017kerry.html

[Kukesa]

8. I agree, AOD.

I don't understand WHY they had to be no namby-pamby and give the entire facing page to the Repukes as if it were a rebuttal.

Maybe they don't want to get any more of those LTTE stating they're part of the "liberal media?"

I, too, am disappointed.

[AngryOldDem]

9. I guess what ticked me off the most....

... was Bruce feeling compelled to offer an explanation. It was a space-waster, and made him look foolish. Even when you compare the selections of Kerry and Bush letters, the bias is unmistakable.

Yes, the Daily News endorsed Kerry. But how much of an endorsement is it? You let your opinion stand on its own; save the rebuttals for the next day.