My Thoughts on Newspaper Endorsements
TLDR: Been a bunch of whining about newspapers not endorsing candidates. I rate endorsements like my morning defecation – they mean just as much to me.
Full story.
There’s been a bunch of whining about the fact that the Washington Post, LA Times, and now USA Today decided not to endorse a particular presidential candidate this year.
I rate endorsements like I rate my morning shit – on a scale of 1 to 5 then I forget about it. It has no bearing nor do I think about it for the rest of my day.
Endorsements don’t sway me one way or another and I don’t think they should be endorsing one candidate or the other. Sure, the reasons they are doing it now seem to be a little shady than just, “Oh we’re going back to our roots and not endorsing anyone anymore.” Mmm-hmmm. Right. Let’s see how long that lasts.
I mean, if these news agencies were as “neutral” as they would have us believe, then we could expect their readership to be roughly split down the middle of our two-party system. By endorsing one they would be alienating half their readers. Not a good financial move.
Same goes for celebrity endorsements. I give less than my morning shit as to who my favorite actor, rapper, or musician endorses for president. Their job is to entertain me. They are today’s equivalent of the Middle Ages’ Fool. The Court Jester. The Joker. A Clown.
The fact that any candidate tries to get Fool A to endorse them so that Fool A can announce it to their 3 million fool fan base, thereby getting said fan base to vote in the same manner just goes to show how weak minded little bitches these sheeple are. It works, apparently. Or maybe the inner narcissist in us wants our favorite celebrities to come to the same conclusions that we have.