Philly Inquirer online "Endorsement" of Obama is quite tainted...

[PCIntern]

http://www.philly.com/


On top of the fact that this is the first Inky endorsement with published dissenters since 1972, the Web Page reads in big type down the left side:

OBAMA WILL LEAD


MCCAIN A BETTER CHOICE




Thre are subheads in between, but the message is clear. Really clear. This is a company which is revamping its product and in a year or two will be the Fox News of Philly journalism. We have the City Paper and Philadelphia Weekly as alternative papers and they're not all bad...especially if you're in search of an escort service...but as far as newspapers go, this one's evolving badly.

[fasttense]

1. Just another reason why papers are losing circulation.

They continually publish neocon crap and call it journalism. Who wants to pay for propaganda?

[uberblonde]

2. Nah, this is because their new publisher, Brian Tierney...

Was a well-known Republican communications powerhouse and he now has a seat at the editorial board. I guarantee you he was the lone "dissenter."

[PCIntern]

3. I don't think so...

people tell me that there are others. Right now, they're not naming names b/c there's a Nazification there and you can lose your job or be demoted into obscurity if your'e perceived as a dissenter. That is, unless you're for McShame/Palin.

Getting dicey over there.

[enough]

4. Yes, and it works both ways. At the Inquirer, if you go along with the prevailing winds,

you will find yourself promoted, even if you are incurably mediocre. Had to stop reading that paper quite a while ago.

For a detailed discussion of what's happened at the Inquirer, see Ed Herman's Inky Watch. A lot of interesting detail and analysis, though it seem to be dormant in recent months.

http://www.inkywatch.org/

[4lbs]

5. Notice that the section where Obama is endorsed is much more specific and detailed in their reasons

they endorse him.

The dissenting opinion that talks about McCain just reiterates the standard Republican talking points without going into detail about McCain's plans for healthcare, jobs, and the economy.

[DFW]

6. Boy, have times changed

When I was in college there, the Inquirer was THE paper.

Even the positive endorsement of Obama had one bit of nonsense:

"There's another reason to vote for Obama. It would tell the world that the
melting-pot America of legend has finally become a reality - electing a
biracial president whose black father was born in Kenya and white mother
hailed from Kansas."

Ridiculous. The reason to vote for Obama is because he is by far the better
candidate. It has nothing to do with his race, and everything to do with
his character, his proposals. and his vision.

The dissent was even worse:

"America needs an honest president with experience, common sense, sound
temperament and good judgment in the Oval Office. Those qualities will
make it easy for many to vote for McCain."

Common sense? Sound temperament? Good judgment?

The mere fact that McCain consented to having Sarah Palin foist upon him
when he desperately wanted someone else shows an utter LACK of common sense
and good judgment. His famous temper belies any claims of sound temperament.
Just ask anyone who has had to work with him (I did--I doubt the Inquirer did).

If America needs a president with experience, I counter with "experience in
WHAT? Wrecking airplanes due to reckless flying? Maintaining independent
positions until they become inconvenient, and then becoming the ultimate
conformist to right-wing orthodoxy? Wanting a Vice-Presidential candidate who
would be prepared to lead the country in case your 72-year-old tenuous health
should fail, but then succumbing to your PR boys and making a totally irresponsible
choice based more on well-packaged empty rhetoric and cup size??"

The arguments presented in the "dissent" read more like a satire presented by
the Pro-Obama faction. It's a pity that they were meant (in vain, I hope) to
be taken seriously.