Hi Neighbor, Maybe you’ve heard. The mighty New York Times will no longer make endorsements in local political races, like mayor and governor. Maybe you don’t care.
Frankly, I understand. More and more newspapers around the country no longer endorse political candidates. The Times offered no reason why its Editorial Board decided to stop endorsing in New York elections, but said it will still endorse in presidential races.
My friend, Grasmere Steve, thinks it’s because The Times wants to be seen solely as a national publication – which it is – and figures no one outside of New York cares who is mayor. But a conservative colleague thinks it’s more nefarious. This is New York, he says – a “leading world city.
” Local candidates can quickly become nationally known. Think Rudy Giuliani. For my work pal, The Times’ message is, “Whatever the Dems do in New York is OK by us.
” He’s pretty much right. But I don’t think their endorsements alter that. The Advance still endorses, but it is a decision I’ve wrestled with for a few years.
What is the point in a nation so divided? In a community that leans so heavily in one direction? What is the point, when an editorial meant to offer thoughts and ideas, to explore both sides, to fairly analyze a candidate’s position, to encourage debate, ends up alienating so many? “Don’t tell me what to do,” we are told. Loudly. What is the point when the readership thinks every news site that offers an opinion differe.