Every election cycle has its share of “I can’t believe that shit happened” moments, and Election 2024 is no exception. Seeing a major party candidate working at a McDonalds drive-thru and then riding around in a garbage truck just to mock Queen Kamala the Appointed and her sycophants? That’s what passes for normal these days.
But what isn’t so normal, at least to Leftists, is Queen Kamala not getting endorsements from major newspapers like the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today. As you might expect, the Left didn’t take this very well. I mean, this is the most important Presidential election in world history (you know, since the last one), and Queen Kamala the Appointed needs every possible endorsement she can get because ORANGE MAN BAD! Who cares about maintaining a veneer of neutrality and not pissing off potential customers to the right of Vladimir Lenin? This is much more important because if Donald Trump gets reelected, he’s going to destroy the mainstream media and put political enemies in concentration camps!
Do you Leftists want me to vote for Trump? Because this is how you get me to vote for Trump!
Seriously, though, this got me to thinking (a scary thought in and of itself) about endorsements in the social media age and why Leftists think it’s important to get them. The answer, my friends, is blowing in the wind…or might be in this edition of the Leftist Lexicon. You know, whichever.
endorsements
What the Left thinks it means – vital messages from important sources designed to inspire you to vote for a candidate
What it really means – not-that-important messages from sources of varying degrees of presumed importance designed to make you believe bullshit
There was a time in our history when you could reasonably depend on newspapers, magazines, and TV news to give you the straight scoop on what was going on around the world and in your backyards. How they got access to my backyard I’m not sure, but the point is their words meant something. So, when a newspaper’s editorial board sat down and decided to support a candidate, it was meaningful.
That was before Leftists found their ways into journalism and into those editorial meetings. Recent history shows there has been a shift in who gets the nod in newspaper endorsements and, although Republicans over the past 50 years have dominated the endorsement game, Democrats have been reaching parity (as opposed to them reaching parody, which they do quite unintentionally). And, to be honest, as newspapers have wandered more Leftward, the endorsements have gotten as predictable as a Michael Bay movie with much fewer explosions.
Now, as media outlets are less popular than used car salesmen with an infectious disease, the time of the political endorsement meaning something may have passed. Not only are traditional media considered to be dinosaurs, but the advent of social media has pretty much made their roles in society obsolete. Why wait until 5 or 6 PM to hear your local talking heads tell you about a news story when you can jump onto the Interwebs and see how your favorite YouTuber thinks? And what better way to get the pulse of the nation than to log on to TikTok, Instagram, and the Social Media Platform Formerly Known as Twitter?
So, why did the Left lose their collectivist shit over the lack of an endorsement from three major newspapers? Control, my dear readers. One of the ways the Left controls the narrative in many cases is because they control the dissemination of it. Donald Trump could come out and say, “I love cats,” and the mainstream press would run “Trump Hates Dogs” stories until the cows come home. Or “The View” wraps up shooting for the day.
I’m sorry. That was mean. I apologize to all the cows offended by being compared to the shrieking harpies on “The View.”
Anyway, when Leftists saw Jeff Bezos making a smart business decision at a newspaper that lost $77 million in 2023 by not pissing off potential readers, they saw it as a betrayal. Oh, sure, they couch it by lamenting the lack of journalistic courage, but it was much more personal. Bezos, a loyal member of the Leftist hivemind, didn’t carry water for Queen Kamala the Appointed by approving a puff piece telling us all how Her Majesty would be better than Trump because…ORANGE MAN BAD!
Without the word of the Washington Post to bolster Queen Kamala the Appointed’s Presidential clusterfuck…I mean campaign, it hurts her chances of becoming President, even though high profile publications have already done so. After all, the Left has to speak in one voice, mainly because they share the same weakened brain cell. Anyone wh0 doesn’t echo that sentiment down to the decibel is automatically considered to be an enemy.
So, Mr. Bezos, welcome to the club.
Where the control element comes into play is the implication of so many high profile publications backing Queen Kamala’s candidacy. If well-known newspapers back one candidate over another, there’s a level of credibility that comes with that endorsement. Think of it like a celebrity endorsement of a product, only for news nerds like your humble correspondent.
Ah, but that credibility comes with a catch in the form of a logical fallacy called ad populum. Simply put, an ad populum argument is when a conclusion is presumed to be true because many people believe it to be true. To put it in this particular context, getting a number of newspapers to agree Queen Kamala the Appointed is the best Presidential candidate out there would be enough to convince potential voters to vote for her because everybody else is doing it.
Anyone who remembers trying to use that line on parents who weren’t trying to be their kids’ friends knows how well that worked. And for the record, Mom, I didn’t jump off the railroad bridge because Mikey Schooner did it. That was my dumbass idea!
And it’s the Left’s dumbass idea to overreact to the lack of Presidential endorsements by quitting their jobs and canceling their subscriptions. In the case of the Washington Post, it’s a way for them to get rid of shitty employees and save money in the process. Fucking brilliant!
More to the point, the time of a newspaper endorsing a candidate and having it mean anything has passed. I’m a news nerd and even I can’t give a shit about what newspaper endorses what candidate because I have my own shit to worry about. I have a family to take care of, a roof to keep over our heads, bills that need to be paid, groceries that need to be bought, gas that needs to be bought so my wife and I can continue to go to work to afford the shit people like Queen Kamala the Appointed made more expensive because they know fuck-all about economics.
And if you think I’m going to say, “You know, I need four more years of this economic shitshow” because some newspaper says Queen Kamala is great, you’re dumber than a Leftist, and that’s a pretty big accomplishment.
Tag: washington post
An Open Letter to Taylor Lorenz
Hi, Taylor! I hope this finds you well. I won’t take up too much of your time since you’re a busy little bee on Twitter.
We need to talk. Seriously.
Over the past month or so, you’ve managed to piss off a lot of people for all the wrong reasons. As a journalist, that’s not always a good thing. I mean, if you piss off people for the right reason, like exposing their corruption or dirty dealings, you’re doing it right. Well…how can I put this delicately…I know.
You’re not doing it right.
Yes, I know you’ve worked for the New York Times and the Washington Post, two major newspapers, but that doesn’t make you a journalist necessarily. Think about the personal assistants who run and get coffee. They’re not journalists, either. But as someone with a byline, you have a responsibility to the truth. Just like the personal assistants, you are expected to do the job right, but unlike the personal assistants, you open yourself up to lawsuits if you fuck up.
Just like you did in the aftermath of the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial. In reporting on the online content creators who did legal analysis, you claimed to have spoken to dozens of them. Welllll…two of those dozens exposed you as a liar, stating you didn’t reach out to them until after your hit-piece…I mean article was published. Oops.
Actually, not an “oops.” That’s a breach of journalistic ethics, if that even exists anymore. As hard as it would be for someone to overlook it, you continue to make it worse by blaming everyone else for your mistakes. Since you got called out rightly for your actions, you’ve played the victim, claiming there was “miscommunication” and a “bad faith campaign” that fueled the controversy. Even if we take your statements at face value, it doesn’t remove your responsibility since it’s your name on the byline.
The fact the Post tried to cover it up with stealth edits and nonsensical editor’s notes don’t help, either. When the Post‘s own media critic says the paper and you fucked up…ya fucked up!
The bigger problem for you is this seems to be your standard operating procedure. Whether it was the Libs of TikTok hit-piece…I mean story or the more recent clusterfuck, you’re quick to make the story about you and how you’re being attacked, thus making you a victim. You even have your talking points down. Whenever you sit down with a sympathetic ear, you talk about “bd faith campaigns” and “online harassment” from randos.
But aren’t you the technology reporter for the Post dealing with online culture?
The fact you’ve had that position at two major newspapers and yet don’t seem to understand the very subject matter you’re supposed to know about (i.e. the reason you’re drawing a paycheck) is a pretty big tell. You are the embodiment of the Peter Principle, only you suck at your job at every level. At this point, I’m not sure I’d trust you to get me a coffee, let alone write a published article. Count your blessings the Post doesn’t share my opinion, but at some point your career will reach a point of diminishing returns.
Let’s just say the fat lady is on in five.
Before you dismiss me as a “bad faith actor,” understand I studied journalism in college and actually hold a Masters Degree in it. I’ve walked beats, written articles under a deadline, and had to answer to editors for mistakes made. This isn’t a game for me; I genuinely want to see good journalism.
In looking at your background, though, I didn’t see where you took the same path. You have a degree in political science, which doesn’t disqualify you from a journalism career but doesn’t help establish even basic credentials. This isn’t me trying to be a gatekeeper, but rather me being a realist. From where I sit, you’re pretty much a blogger with an expense account.
Instead of listening to people like Brian Stelter (who is the journalistic equivalent of a potato), I hope you listen to what I’m about to say and take it to heart. You need to learn how to do your job before you do anything else. You’re young..ish, so you have time to take a journalism course or two from someone who has actually done the legwork. Granted, this might be harder than you accepting responsibility for your fuck-ups, but it will make you a better journalist.
Or at the very least, it will act like a jeweler’s cloth to expose the flaws in your current work.
Until then, please spend less time on Twitter and on making excuses and spend more time learning your craft.
Sincerely,
Thomas