NY Times endorses Kamala Harris – “The only patriotic choice for president”

Weekly Editorial   —   Posted on October 25, 2024

(by The NY Times Editorial Board) – It is hard to imagine a candidate more unworthy to serve as president of the United States than Donald Trump. He has proved himself morally unfit for an office that asks its occupant to put the good of the nation above self-interest. He has proved himself temperamentally unfit for a role that requires the very qualities — wisdom, honesty, empathy, courage, restraint, humility, discipline — that he most lacks.

Those disqualifying characteristics are compounded by everything else that limits his ability to fulfill the duties of the president: his many criminal charges, his advancing age, his fundamental lack of interest in policy and his increasingly bizarre cast of associates.

This unequivocal, dispiriting truth — Donald Trump is not fit to be president — should be enough for any voter who cares about the health of our country and the stability of our democracy to deny him re-election.

For this reason, regardless of any political disagreements voters might have with her, Kamala Harris is the only patriotic choice for president.

Most presidential elections are, at their core, about two different visions of America that emerge from competing policies and principles. This one is about something more foundational. It is about whether we invite into the highest office in the land a man who has revealed, unmistakably, that he will degrade the values, defy the norms and dismantle the institutions that have made our country strong.

As a dedicated public servant who has demonstrated care, competence and an unwavering commitment to the Constitution, Ms. Harris stands alone in this race. She may not be the perfect candidate for every voter, especially those who are frustrated and angry about our government’s failures to fix what’s broken — from our immigration system to public schools to housing costs to gun violence. Yet we urge Americans to contrast Ms. Harris’s record with her opponent’s.

Published at The New York Times on September 30, 2024. Reprinted here for educational purposes only. May not be reproduced on other websites without permission.

The Times notes: The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.


Questions

1. What is the main idea of the NY Times' Editorial Board's endorsement of Kamala Harris?

2. List the characteristics the NY Times' editors emphasize Donald Trump lacks (with the assertion they are the characteristics Kamala Harris possesses).

3. What additional points do the editors make about Donald Trump that they assert make him unqualified to be president?

4. What is your reaction to each of the following points made by the NY Times' Editorial Board in their endorsement of Kamala Harris? (Do you agree or disagree with each assertion? Explain your answers.)

  • "...regardless of any political disagreements voters might have with her, Kamala Harris is the only patriotic choice for president."
  • Most presidential elections are, at their core, about two different visions of America that emerge from competing policies and principles. This one is about something more foundational. It is about whether we invite into the highest office in the land a man who has revealed, unmistakably, that he will degrade the values, defy the norms and dismantle the institutions that have made our country strong.
  • As a dedicated public servant who has demonstrated care, competence and an unwavering commitment to the Constitution, Ms. Harris stands alone in this race. She may not be the perfect candidate for every voter, especially those who are frustrated and angry about our government’s failures to fix what’s broken — from our immigration system to public schools to housing costs to gun violence. Yet we urge Americans to contrast Ms. Harris’s record with her opponent’s.

5. In their endorsement, the editors "urge Americans to contrast Ms. Harris’s record with her opponent’s." What is her record, according to the endorsement?

6. Do you think the NY Times editors make a good case for their endorsement of Kamala Harris? Explain your answer.

7. Read the "Background" below the questions about newspaper endorsements. Read about newspaper endorsements in the past 3 presidential elections.
What decision did the owners of the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post make about endorsing a presidential candidate? Why do you think they each chose to do so?

8. Read the NY Post’s Editorial Board’s endorsement of Donald Trump and answer the questions there.


Background

U.S. newspaper endorsements for the Democratic presidential candidate have fallen by more than 60% since 2016 after VP Kamala Harris became the party's frontrunner, according to a rough estimate by Fox News Digital.

The Los Angeles Times, which endorsed Barack Obama in 2008, Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020, decided not to endorse a presidential candidate this year. The decision was made by the paper's owner, billionaire Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong. The editorial page editor Mariel Garza resigned in protest, with two more members of the editorial board following.

In an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review, Garza said in part: "I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not OK with us being silent. In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up."

Owner Soon-Shiong, in a post on X on Wednesday, said in part that the editorial board was "provided the opportunity to draft a factual analysis of all the POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies by EACH candidate during their tenures at the White House, and how these policies affected the nation."

"In this way, with this clear and non-partisan information side-by-side, our readers could decide who would be worthy of being President for the next four years," he added. "Instead of adopting this path as suggested, the Editorial Board chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision."

The LA Times' editorial board had issued presidential endorsements from the 1880s through 1972, only returning to the practice to endorse Obama in 2008. Since then, it has exclusively endorsed Democratic presidential candidates.

The Los Angeles Times released its statewide and nationwide endorsements last week, including Democratic candidates for the U.S. House and Senate.

The Washington Post also will not endorse any presidential candidate this year, or in any elections in the future, per billionaire owner Jeff Bezos (owner of Amazon). Several journalists have resigned in protest. An editorial board member said: “people [journalists, editors...] are shocked, furious, surprised.” And at least 2,000 people have canceled their subscriptions in protest.

In 2016, the Post endorsed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and they endorsed President Joe Biden in 2020. In the 2016 endorsement of Clinton, the editorial board called Trump a "bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic, vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, contemptuous of democracy and enamored of America’s enemies."

"As president, he would pose a grave danger to the nation and the world," the editorial board wrote.

Newspapers have traditionally endorsed candidates in elections since the 19th century, when papers were more closely tied to political parties. Over time, newspapers shifted to become more independent of the party apparatus, and editorial boards for the newspapers took over endorsements, with the ideological lean of the board often an indicator of the endorsement outcome.

In 2020, several newspapers that historically endorsed Republican candidates either endorsed Biden or declined to endorse any candidate. The Arizona Republic, which had endorsed Republicans for decades, was one of the few that switched parties to endorse Biden.

Some publications that had never endorsed a presidential candidate before, like USA Today, broke with tradition in 2020 to also endorse Biden. (from Fox News Digital and ABC News with Semafor)

By issuing endorsements, newspaper editors often aim to encourage informed voting by presenting a candidate they believe will best lead on key issues affecting their readers.

Newspapers that endorse candidates often do so to highlight the values they consider important in public office, positioning themselves as influencers on civic issues.

Endorsements also serve as an extension of a media outlet’s role in society: promoting informed, engaged voters.

Outlets consider factors like a candidate’s stance on critical issues, personal integrity, experience, and, in many cases, how their policy goals align with the media organization’s editorial values.

Critics argue that endorsements can influence news coverage, potentially leading to biases in reporting. They also worry that endorsements may undermine the perceived impartiality of the press.

Ultimately, endorsements are a way for the media to support an informed and active democracy. They do this while following legal and ethical rules that keep opinion separate from unbiased news reporting. (excerpted from CBS Washington DC local WUSA9-TV)