For the third time since The Atlantic’s founding, the editors endorse a candidate for president.

The Atlantic has endorsed only three presidential candidates in 159 years. Abraham Lincoln (1860) and Lyndon B. Johnson (1964) were the first two.

The Case for Hillary Clinton and Against Donald Trump

There is now a long list of papers that have endorsed Hillary Clinton, and none that I can think of that endorsed Donald Trump.

That speaks volumes doesn't it?

Oh wait! Trump got The National Enquirer.

A Running Tally of Newspaper Endorsements in the Presidential Election

originally posted by: primespickle

The Atlantic has endorsed only three presidential candidates in 159 years. Abraham Lincoln (1860) and Lyndon B. Johnson (1964) were the first two.

The Case for Hillary Clinton and Against Donald Trump

There is now a long list of papers that have endorsed Hillary Clinton, and none that I can think of that endorsed Donald Trump.

That speaks volumes doesn't it?

Oh wait! Trump got The National Enquirer.

A Running Tally of Newspaper Endorsements in the Presidential Election

Sure its speaks volumes. The establishment media doesn't like a non establishment person.

You know what even speaks more volumes? That only 6% of people really trust the media.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

originally posted by: primespickle

The Atlantic has endorsed only three presidential candidates in 159 years. Abraham Lincoln (1860) and Lyndon B. Johnson (1964) were the first two.

That speaks volumes doesn't it?

Why do you think it "speaks volumes"? Are we now supposed to perk up and listen to them and do what they say? Here we are on ATS daily decrying the corrupt left-leaning MSM, which you have now proven, and you think it "speaks volumes." Well, yes, it does. It shows the MSM is a completely left-leaning progressive pile of poo. That's what the majority of us have been saying for literally years now. It's not what you would call a surprise.

Why is this? Because journalists go to "schools of communication" to learn the trade. By and large these are left leaning to begin with. Someone who is conservative is not likely to want to pursue a career in that field because it is so uncomfortable being there. My cousin, a copy editor for most of his adult life, reports that you cannot even voice a conservative view in a newsroom because if the emotional and livid reaction you get from the editors, reporters and even the weathermen and sports editors. It's basically a liberal profession.

That speaks volumes all right, but perhaps not in the manner you think.

originally posted by: Grambler

Sure its speaks volumes. The establishment media doesn't like a non establishment person.

You know what even speaks more volumes? That only 6% of people really trust the media.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

You used a MSM source to prove the MSM cannot be trusted? How does that work?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: primespickle

The Atlantic has endorsed only three presidential candidates in 159 years. Abraham Lincoln (1860) and Lyndon B. Johnson (1964) were the first two.

The Case for Hillary Clinton and Against Donald Trump

There is now a long list of papers that have endorsed Hillary Clinton, and none that I can think of that endorsed Donald Trump.

That speaks volumes doesn't it?

Oh wait! Trump got The National Enquirer.

A Running Tally of Newspaper Endorsements in the Presidential Election

Sure its speaks volumes. The establishment media doesn't like a non establishment person.

You know what even speaks more volumes? That only 6% of people really trust the media.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

No it's not that! Trump isn't a republican and will be a disaster for the USA if elected do you expect the media to ignore the things he says and does?

originally posted by: primespickle

originally posted by: Grambler

Sure its speaks volumes. The establishment media doesn't like a non establishment person.

You know what even speaks more volumes? That only 6% of people really trust the media.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

You used a MSM source to prove the MSM cannot be trusted? How does that work?

Ah yes, this old catch-22. Had I posted a non main stream cite, you wouldn't have believed it, but if I post a a main stream source this some how proves the main stream legitimacy.

Do you believe this number is wrong, that more than 6% of the people trust the main stream media?

I think that the mainstream media would have every incentive to spin these numbers as positive as possible, and if even they are saying 6%, that is terrible.

But ok, I will wait for you to post any source you want that shows that people really trust the main stream media.

a reply to: schuyler

Although there are more "liberal" newspapers than conservative ones, there are indeed many conservative newspapers out there. Not all are "left-leaning".

The Dallas Morning News, whose editorial board had picked a Republican each time since before World War II, said Trump "plays on fear — exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny — to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best."

The Cincinnati Enquirer, which had endorsed Republicans for nearly a century, called Trump "a clear and present danger to our country. ... Our reservations about Clinton pale in comparison to our fears about Trump."

The Houston Chronicle's editorial board called Trump "a danger to the Republic" and said his "convention-speech comment, 'I alone can fix it,' should make every American shudder."
source

The list goes on and on.

Many conservative papers have endorsed Hillary Clinton, and again, no major credible paper has endorsed Trump.

a reply to: primespickle

The newspapers are to give us an unbiased account of happenings in the world (news). They should keep their editorials in that section of their paper.

Who owns these papers and who do they give money to?

What do they have to gain or loose?

When newspapers vote, it will count.

originally posted by: primespickle

The Atlantic has endorsed only three presidential candidates in 159 years. Abraham Lincoln (1860) and Lyndon B. Johnson (1964) were the first two.

The Case for Hillary Clinton and Against Donald Trump

There is now a long list of papers that have endorsed Hillary Clinton, and none that I can think of that endorsed Donald Trump.

That speaks volumes doesn't it?

Oh wait! Trump got The National Enquirer.

A Running Tally of Newspaper Endorsements in the Presidential Election

Why would anyone let themselves be influenced by the MSM?

They are known liars and manipulators.

Wake up!

a reply to: primespickle

There is now a long list of papers that have endorsed Hillary Clinton, and none that I can think of that endorsed Donald Trump.

That speaks volumes doesn't it?

It doesn't, because it is an appeal to popularity. Many people once asserted the earth was flat. Speaks volumes, doesn't it?

a reply to: seasonal

The newspapers are to give us an unbiased account of happenings in the world (news). They should keep their editorials in that section of their paper.

Correct. Everything they are doing is against journalistic ethics. They have thrown the 4th estate into ill-repute and suspicion in order to engage in a personal crusade.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: primespickle

There is now a long list of papers that have endorsed Hillary Clinton, and none that I can think of that endorsed Donald Trump.

That speaks volumes doesn't it?

It doesn't, because it is an appeal to popularity. Many people once asserted the earth was flat. Speaks volumes, doesn't it?

So your saying that the papers support Hillary because she's more popular than Trump?

I agree

a reply to: primespickle

Personally (I don't know about anyone else) I don't allow others (media, online, etc) to make decisions for me.

a reply to: primespickle

Exactly Who reads Newspapers anymore ? A Dying Media .

Let me see ... The Atlantic is well known for its liberal opinions on everything. I would venture a guess that it doesn't endorse because it knows it would be no shock if it did. Everyone knows which candidate it would endorse ... the communist if one is running.

They likely only endorsed Hillary this year because most folks expected them to be feeling the Bern and thought they might potentially be all-in for Stein.

If they are lowering themselves to actually voice support for Hillary, then you know she's in bad shape.

originally posted by: GramblerYou know what even speaks more volumes? That only 6% of people really trust the media.

Do you understand the reason why this is? People in the US have given up on facts, they trust the media outlet that publishes opinions that line up with their own. So people get a news outlet they like, believe that outlet speaks the truth, and when someone not from that outlet says something that contradicts that belief they find it to be untrustworthy.

It's like Congress, everyone likes their person but no one likes the group. Coincidentally, this has lined up with the number of media sources out there exploding since the internet and 24 hour cable news became things. Peoples chosen outlets now make up a smaller percentage of the total, so the group looks worse.

When your only choices were ABC, CBS, and NBC (and we know things were biased back then), people had opinions that lined up with one of the three, and the group as a whole looked more trustworthy since there were fewer contradictory opinions floating around.

a reply to: primespickle

American Worker is worth nothing, NOTHING, for those latte-sipping hens.