New Yorker mag endorses Kerry

[techweenie]

New Yorker magazine breaks with tradition, endorses Kerry

Mon Oct 25,12:46 PM ET
U.S. National - AFP

NEW YORK (AFP) - For the first time in its 80-year history, the venerable New Yorker magazine endorsed a presidential candidate, urging readers Monday to vote for Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) in next week's election.

"He is plainly the better choice," the weekly said in a lengthy editorial that excoriated the record of President George W. Bush (news - web sites) on everything from health and the environment to his handling of the war in Iraq.

"As observers, reporters, and commentators we will hold (Kerry) to the highest standards of honesty and performance," the editorial said. "For now, as citizens, we hope for his victory."

Despite taking such an unprecedented move -- the New Yorker has never endorsed a candidate before -- the magazine argued that it was not sacrificing partisan independence...

----------------

...must be too many educated people at that magazine...

[928ram]

"highest standards of honesty and performance"??

Surely you meant (un)educted people.

Unless they were endorsing some other John Kerry, maybe a potato from Idaho with the same name or something.

[304065]

Actually, the tone of The New Yorker lately has been very biased. It doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

If they want to sacrifice subscription revenue to make a point, that's all right with me. No question that people don't need The New Yorker to help them make a decision on Tuesday.

The article is revisionist history raised to an art. Read it yourselves here: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?041101ta_talk_editors

...must be too many educated people at that magazine...

Yeah. . . so educated that they will be able to find jobs elsewhere after Conde Nast feels the economic impact. There's a reason that they managed to stay out of the endorsement game for 80 years. And the reason is, that people don't turn to their magazine for editorial commentary. Why such a sense of desparation NOW? Are they so bereft of confidence that they felt like they HAD to make a difference?

[techweenie]

Originally posted by john_cramer
Why such a sense of desparation NOW? Are they so bereft of confidence that they felt like they HAD to make a difference?

Um, I doubt that it's really desperation. I think a lot of people really care about this country and are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to keep it from being screwed up any more than it has been in the last 3-1/2 years.

[928ram]

You left out "As observers, reporters, and commentators we will hold (Kerry) too . . . .

You are right, but they did fail these words in regards to Kerry yesterday at the most recent by my count.

[304065]

Uh huh. Why break with an 80-year tradition and put your magazine's revenue, your job, and the careers of many of the nation's best writers on the line NOW? They didn't found the magazine, didn't grow its subscriber base, didn't build its popularity over the years, but are perfectly happy to screw all of that up just to be one more voice in the din.

Think about it. They refused to endorse George McGovern against Nixon in 1972. Refused to endorse John F. Kennedy in 1960.

Chalk up The New Yorker as yet another victim of the end of civil discourse here.

[gaijinda]

Field & Stream has a higher circulation than the New Yorker.

[MichiganMat]

The New Yorker is a great magazine.
I can understand why the GoOPers don't like it though...not enough pictures.

[304065]

You shouldn't make fun of people who are illiterate, Matt.

And have you checked out the Cartoons? They are at LEAST as much fun as the articles.

What a shame.

[304065]

Field & Stream has a higher circulation than the New Yorker.

Gaijinda, hilarious! Did Field & Stream endorse anyone? I think I'll base my voting decision on that!

Come to think of it, who does EXCELLENCE support?

[cmccuist]

Originally posted by MichiganMat
I can understand why the GoOPers don't like it though...not enough pictures.

That's why we would like porn rags if we weren't so repressed sexually - plenty of pictures!

I can't believe the New Yorker would compromise themselves even further than they already have for John Kerry. It's an anti-W endorsement. Kerry is a cipher. Kerry the spectator
W is driving everything that happens in this election and the Democrats are putting lipstick on a pig.

[gaijinda]

See Christopher Hitchens in Slate take on the New Yorker:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108636/

They are going to wish they stayed above the fray..

[VINMAN]

New Yorker magazine, the glossy version of the Village Voice....

[304065]

the glossy version of the Village Voice....

LOL! The Village Voice actually has a link to the endorsement on their home page!

[VINMAN]

Originally posted by john_cramer
LOL! The Village Voice actually has a link to the endorsement on their home page!

I rest my case!!