Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for President. The New York Times

Free AI web copilot to create summaries, insights and extended knowledge, download it at here

1291

Abstract

rences for job seekers etc., and endorsements of political candidates are fraught, but the The New York Times’ picks for President highlight some disturbing aspects. Why are there two candidates? was this indecision? a compromise? or did the editorial team just run out of time to decide one particularly? Who knows? But the co-choice of Amy Klobuchar amounts to a cover, or manner, to promote the real choice of The New York Times — that of Elizabeth Warren. A guise of “inclusiveness” or “accommodation” or simply a convenience perhaps, because Klobuchar lacks the campaign apparatus (and the figures) to likely win the nomination.<figure id="af63"><img src="https://cdn-images-1.readmedium.com/v2/resize:fit:800/1*ARhHGs4YobaQKzjzDEw07A.png"><figcaption></figcaption></figure>Showing off the candidates, each with their packages of credits and debits is great, worthy and helpful. On the other hand, deciding for the voter is not, and is the opposite of “a hefty dose of humility” that the New York Times tongue-in-cheeked in their editorial — The Democrats’ Best Choices For President, January 20. There is a “hefty dose” of “tone” that inflates the quality of the New York Times’ opinion, almost to the point of pomposity, if not arrogance. It may even nu

Options

dge at the boundaries of democracy. The editorial team boasts spending twelve hours with the leading Democratic candidates. Wow! And, declared that “Voters haven’t benefited from a clarifying choice” and “Now is the time to narrow the race”. Really? Says who? — the New York Times may, or may not know what is best for us all.Fair and comprehensive writing on Presidential candidates is a demanding task, and is intrinsically subjective, but I fear, that this editorial is a frame constructed to support a conclusion that was previously made. The editorial is neither fair or comprehensive, and may serve to doubt the objectivity and credibility of other editorials and articles in the The New York Times newspaper. One particular question that it raises is — Are there too many “like minds” in the editorial team? Decisions made, even by very talented people, but void of diverse opinion, can be dangerous in politics, business and editorials of The New York Times.That the choice for President are both women is good, but would be disconcerting should sex have been the deciding factor. It was astonishing that Pete Buttigieg was so little considered — perhaps he should have worn a dress to The New York Times interview.</article></body>

Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar for President. The New York Times — Just what were you thinking?

photo thedailybeast.com

Referring to The New York Times article, The Democrats’ Best Choices For President, by the Editorial Board, published January 20, 2020

Should any newspaper, including The New York Times, endorse a candidate? after all, what is the purpose? — to lend weight to a chosen one? to counterbalance an ominous direction? to pronounce authority or smart a certain wisdom? I guess the real reasons are mixed, and may never be really clear. An additional aspect, is that more is revealed about The New York Times, than perhaps the candidates they are have endorsed — or not endorsed — or hardly mentioned (bright spark, Pete Buttigieg gets a dismissive few lines). It reminds me of the value of “references” in an application for a job, a co-op apartment or membership in the local polo club. The references often provide considerably more information about the people writing them, rather than the person they are writing about.

Both references for job seekers etc., and endorsements of political candidates are fraught, but the The New York Times’ picks for President highlight some disturbing aspects. Why are there two candidates? was this indecision? a compromise? or did the editorial team just run out of time to decide one particularly? Who knows? But the co-choice of Amy Klobuchar amounts to a cover, or manner, to promote the real choice of The New York Times — that of Elizabeth Warren. A guise of “inclusiveness” or “accommodation” or simply a convenience perhaps, because Klobuchar lacks the campaign apparatus (and the figures) to likely win the nomination.

Showing off the candidates, each with their packages of credits and debits is great, worthy and helpful. On the other hand, deciding for the voter is not, and is the opposite of “a hefty dose of humility” that the New York Times tongue-in-cheeked in their editorial — The Democrats’ Best Choices For President, January 20. There is a “hefty dose” of “tone” that inflates the quality of the New York Times’ opinion, almost to the point of pomposity, if not arrogance. It may even nudge at the boundaries of democracy. The editorial team boasts spending twelve hours with the leading Democratic candidates. Wow! And, declared that “Voters haven’t benefited from a clarifying choice” and “Now is the time to narrow the race”. Really? Says who? — the New York Times may, or may not know what is best for us all.

Fair and comprehensive writing on Presidential candidates is a demanding task, and is intrinsically subjective, but I fear, that this editorial is a frame constructed to support a conclusion that was previously made. The editorial is neither fair or comprehensive, and may serve to doubt the objectivity and credibility of other editorials and articles in the The New York Times newspaper. One particular question that it raises is — Are there too many “like minds” in the editorial team? Decisions made, even by very talented people, but void of diverse opinion, can be dangerous in politics, business and editorials of The New York Times.

That the choice for President are both women is good, but would be disconcerting should sex have been the deciding factor. It was astonishing that Pete Buttigieg was so little considered — perhaps he should have worn a dress to The New York Times interview.