OK Paper That Endorsed Hillary Still Hasn’t Recovered

162 out of 10,000 subscribers isn't a whole bunch. However, losing 11 of it's largest advertisers including it's largest account has gotta hurt. Hopefully, the good people of OK will refuse to advertise with the paper and drive them right outta business. They have a right to their opinion, publishing it with an endorsement of an unpopular candidate in their area comes with pitfalls. Maybe next time they will remain neutral....if there is a next time.

 

Aren’t you basically saying that anyone who openly supports a minority candidate in an election should be forced out of business? That only a leading candidate can safely receive the support of any media organisation? You also seem to be unreservedly promoting the idea of making business decisions on the basis of people’s political position which has been something generally treated quite differently when it has been businesses (purportedly) refusing to serve customers on the basis of their voting choice. The whole thing just strikes me as unnecessarily divisive and ultimately self-destructive.

 

You're putting words in my mouth. They are free to endorse anyone they want, but they can't expect their advertisers to stick around in a county (Garfield) where they voted for Trump 73.8%. They should have taken a neutral stance or face getting what they got....loss of their biggest advertisers.

 

I’m not really questioning what they would have expected, I’m questioning whether this kind of thing should be seen as a positive thing for society, whether it should be cheered or celebrated as you appear to be doing. Clearly everyone involved has the free right to do what they did but that doesn’t mean we can’t consider the situation and consequences as a bad thing that shouldn’t be encouraged in future.

Though your suggestion is that they should have remained neutral, the implication is that had they chosen to publically support Trump they would (and should?) have been perfectly OK. The other potential issue is whether they sought to present a neutral but are perceived (or maybe falsely accused) of favouring an unpopular candidate. And in the ever more divisive binary politics of the US, doesn’t this kind of thing only serve to increase and encourage that division and hatred?

Unless that’s what you want of course.

 

Considering newspapers are supposed to print the facts and leave the bias for the editorial section and maybe the comic section, I have no problem with the people of OK holding the paper accountable for their political endorsements, no matter if the candidate is popular or not. Newspapers deserve the consequences of their actions just like anybody else.

You can call it division, or hatred, or anything you want, but the market is speaking.

 

The market speaking is the very reason we don't have factual news anymore, just Fox and MSNBC. People prefer dramatic commentary over dry facts. And Facebook taught us that they even prefer fake news over real news if it supports their view of the world. But it sounds like this newspaper is on the wrong side of the aisle for the area they're in, so they will need to adapt.

 

Same thing happen to Rush Limbaugh, this is the risk you take when choose partisan over nonpartisan. In a country that is essentially a 50/50 split politically you're better off to stay neutral.

 

You could just as easily turn that argument around. It's a chicken or egg kind of thing. Who's to say that the market isn't responding to bias in the news instead of the news responding to the bias?

 

As I said, it isn’t a question of it happening or why, it’s a question of whether we should unreservedly celebrate it happening as a good thing or whether we look at what it means about society and the media, considering how it could be a symptom or cause of some negative consequences that we should at least acknowledge and guard against, if not actively questioning and discouraging the casual behaviour or attitudes.

The question here is what environment are you seeking to promote? While you say you’re happy for newspapers to be “held to account” regardless of their editorial stance, it’s clear they’re only likely to be significantly “punished” if they support a locally less popular candidate (or maybe for simply failing to actively support a very popular one – would a truly neutral stance still have been considered biased by their detractors?). Doesn’t this attitude and practice by advertisers risk effectively silencing any and all less popular opinions (or anything that might be perceived as such) in commercial media outlets?

Again, while we can all support the rights of businesses not to advertise in a particular publication for any reason, we can still say that a wider take-up of such habits risks bringing about negative consequences to political discourse and wider society. We could say the same thing about newspapers committing themselves to supporting particular political candidates too. They have every right to do so but maybe it would be better if they didn’t.

 

Exactly. I took the point of the original post to be not that the paper should have endorsed Donald Trump, but that the paper shouldn't have endorsed either candidate. Having picked the losing horse, they now have to live with the consequences. C'est la vie...

 

They have a product to sell, information. It's either salable in their area or it's not. If they take a position that's unsaleable in the area they're in.....then what it is, is what it is. The restaurant in Hawaii that refused to seat Trump supporters will be ok in such a left wing state.

 

Are you deliberately avoiding my underlying questions? Do you believe this kind of division and silencing minority voices is a good thing, to be celebrated and encouraged? What consequences do you see were it to become much more widespread and invasive across society?

 

Listen, if the folks of Enid only want their news from fox "news" and RW shock jocks and bloggers, good for them. There is probably not much local news there anyway....

 

If it's for regular people, no silencing anyone is a bad thing. Newspapers are a business and are free to climb up on a public soap box that regular citizens don't have. However, they shouldn't be surprised when the sales of what they have to sell suffer.

 

Then that's what will sell in their area. A point I made in the OP. A paper in the liberal north east their opinion would be well received.

 

Right, I bet if the newspaper simply started posting Obama birth certificate and other RW CONspirency stories, they'd get their advertisers back. Opinion should always reflect the audience.

 

I think it should be more widespread. From the Dixie Chicks to the Koch Brothers. Vote your conscious, buy with consciousness. Be the market you want to see in the world. Show what you believe in. I believe this because the far left social cultists who have businesses would be squeezed out. Social Cultists continually try to press their agenda in everything they do. Boycott those who don't fit your beliefs.

 

No reply.
I´m just busting a gut at Professor Peabody´s picture of Hillary Clinton.

 

Now you're getting ridiculous with nothing further to add to the conversation.

 

I didn't read any of the posts past yours, so maybe this was said already, but here it goes...

Why do news outlets who are supposed to report the facts give opinions? I could see it happening on TV where there's time to fill and it has an entertainment value, but not a newspaper. Even worse, their original opinion favored a conservative only to see it switch to a progressive. WTF? And to make it even worse than that, the opinion was probably just that from one person who has now put his/her staff in jeopardy of losing some of their jobs and for all we know they possibly Trump supporters.

Finally, a newspaper is a business just like that café in Hawaii. Why would anyone risk turning off a potential customer over an opinion, especially an opinion in a small area where the paper probably knew the mood of the people?

Dumb. Dumb. Dumb.

 

I suppose they could hope for a sudden influx of liberal causes to buy a ton of advertising, LOL. Ones like Greenpeace, la raza, BLM etc Or maybe they will learn that small and large business minded Americans like Trump's ideas

 

I respect everyone's right to free speech. If they are a business then they should accept the consequences.

 

I'll answer:

Oklahoma is the reddest of the red. To endorse Hillary Clinton is the most self-destructive thing they could possibly have done. If they're too stupid to anticipate the consequences, they deserve to die.

 

If Trump does better than a mean less than 2% growth in his 4 years, the Democrats are in big trouble come 2018/2020.

 

if he can his tax bill through that would be a cinch