Over 200 American outlets under USA Today parent company Gannett will not back candidates “in presidential or national races,” according to USA Today.
“None of the USA TODAY Network publications are endorsing in presidential or national races,” a spokesperson for USA Today, Lark-Marie Antón, said in an email to The Hill on Monday.
That’s the thing about fascist dictatorships. Billionaires think they want one and imagine themselves being one of the powerful few oligarchs. Then, they fall out of a window because dictators don’t like potential rivals.
Then, they fall out of a window because dictators don’t like potential rivals.
This is typically true but in this case all they have to do is mention Trump’s “big manly hands” or call him the best amateur, no - professional golfer the world has ever seen and then they get offered a cabinet position.
The Hill - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Hill:
Wiki: reliable - The Hill is considered generally reliable for American politics. The publication’s opinion pieces should be handled with the appropriate guideline. The publication’s contributor pieces, labeled in their bylines, receive minimal editorial oversight and should be treated as equivalent to self-published sources.
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Search topics on Ground.News
Why are we doing this? Because we believe America’s future is decided locally – one race at a time,” Antón continued. “And with more than 200 publications across the nation, our public service is to provide readers with the facts that matter and the trusted information they need to make informed decisions.”
Local elections are important, but I’m pretty sure that the one race that’s going to have the biggest impact on America’s future is the presidential race. You’d think think they’d have something to say on the topic if it was America’s future they were thinking about rather than just their own.
The statement basically says “we’re corporate” and tries to pass the buck. They own publications in various places around the country, some of which are clearly MAGAt deep.
They don’t want the parent company to get a barrage of angry psychos boycotting their local papers and affecting their bottom line, so they’re forcing all of their entities to fall in line. Same shit as Bezos and the other BilBo Club asshats.
But isn’t Gannett a conservative company? Is this good news, like if Fox News or OANN says they won’t endorse a candidate?
It’s bad news. Gannet is a news conglomerate, but is run locally in each market. Each market has an editorial team, and each would like to independently endorse candidates. Whether they endorse Trump or Harris or Putin for president, they should be able to do that without interference from the corporate overlords. Oppression isn’t good when the oppressed disagree with you.
The endorsements come from the writers, not from leadership.
If a conservative owner owns a liberal set of writers, muzzling your writers and stopping endorsements is to the conservatives advantage.
I briefly worked for them befofore covid. it was like for a few months though.
So yeah. LA Times, Washington Post and now Gannett conglomerate all made the same decision at roughly the same time.
This was preplanned.
I don’t think this media takeover strategy is going to go as they hope. This makes the Democrats cause more real and heightens the stakes.
Well we did “War in Europe”, “Genocide against Middle Eastern people”, “terrorize the LGTBQ community”, and “global pandemic” on our 20th Century redux speedrun, so I guess we’re checking off “Business Plot” now.
You cant vote out a capitalist, even when they go full fascist. Through the divine right of the dollar he alone is dictator of everyonw he pays and he still owns the entirety of the profit. What the plan to stop these guys from making every US election have at least one fascist candidate in it?
