Butt-hurt newspaper editorial page staff are either ignorant of or refuse to face reality on endorsements

Gotta love big, or formerly big, newspaper editorial page/opinion editors all butt-hurt that Patrick Soon-Shiong of the LA Behind the Times or Jeff Bezos of the Bozos Post won’t do endorsement editorials. This Axios piece has more on other newspapers' trends on this.

The reality? Endorsement editorials by major newspapers, certainly not in presidential races, realistically not in statewide races like governor or U.S. senator, simply don't swing the needle.

Update: So let multiple staffers quit both newspapers, like genocidalist neocon Robert Kagan at the WaPost. Let former editor Marty Baron (with his own forever support for forever war) fulminate away, even as Baron claims the paper — where long-time editorial page editor Fred Hiatt saluted every bit of Forever War every American president ran up the flagpole — was once known for "courage." 

In a flip the other way, Soon-Shiong's daughter salutes the Times endorsing nobody, because of the Harris-Biden support for the genocide in Gaza, while specifically noting her statement was not an endorsement of Trump. In turn, The Wrap's Ross Lincoln called her claim "risible," which, maybe it is to some degree, but which also says a lot about where The Wrap is coming from, including on itself maybe running flak for Kamala is a Zionist Cop.

And, with that? I might have to do a second piece off this. Beyond performance theater, we're in the land of hypocrisy.

And, this isn't anything new. It's been the case for at least 20 years.

Says who? Says me?

No; so said newspaper industry insider analysts 20 years ago at American Journalism Review. Specifically, author Tim Porter was former assistant managing editor at the San Francisco Examiner and crunched the information, along with noting politicos halfway admit this was the case back then. I remember reading this story in print 20 years ago and getting my eyes opened. Teh Google found it for me anew.

And, to start with, per Porter, if newspapers had limited endorsement reach then, based on older data before the Net started eroding their power further?

Research on the electoral influence of newspaper endorsements is scarcer than a liberal at a Wall Street Journal editorial board meeting. Most of the data was compiled before the burgeoning Internet and the cacophony of cable TV further dulled whatever edge a newspaper endorsement gave one candidate over another.

They've got even less now.

Porter then referenced a heavyweight in the industry who had written a book about that very subject.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote about newspaper endorsements in her 2000 book, "Everything You Think You Know About Politics and Why You're Wrong."

"The direct effect of editorials does not appear to be significant enough to find," Jamieson said in an interview. "The effect of newspaper endorsements is largely created through advertising about them that is sponsored by the candidate."

Even then, Jamieson and others interviewed for this article agree, the impact of endorsements on national or even regional elections – contests in which candidates are well-known among voters – is negligible

There you go. 

But wait, that's not all. Jamieson had boatloads of info:

"Many Americans in 1996 had no idea which presidential candidate their newspaper supported; many more had the wrong idea," Jamieson writes of an Annenberg study of that year's election. "To judge from the responses, many people were guessing." The findings included:

• Among readers of papers that had endorsed President Clinton, "three-quarters reported that fact; 11 percent reported their paper had endorsed Bob Dole; and 14 percent reported their paper had endorsed no one."

• Among readers of papers that had endorsed Dole, "less than one-half" knew that, while one-third thought their paper had endorsed Clinton.

• Of those who knew their newspaper's endorsement, 1 percent said it played a "great deal" and 10 percent said it played "somewhat" of a role in their voting decision. "Of that 11 percent, about a quarter had the endorsement wrong."

More recently, a Pew Center for the People & the Press study released in January, which measured media influences on voters during the 2004 presidential campaign, concluded that "newspaper endorsements are also less influential than four years ago, and dissuade as many Americans as they persuade."

THERE you go. And, that's going back 24-28 years ago.

Well, no, one more. Porter  has a quote from the editorial page head of the Old Gray Lady itself at that time:

"I don't think anybody who has a job like mine," says Gail Collins, editorial page editor of the New York Times, "is deluded that many people change their opinion about who they're going to vote for for president when they see the Times editorial."

NOW there you go.

So, why all the butt-hurt editorial editors and editorial columnists and writers today?

Among the younger set, say, below age 45, maybe below age 50, ignorance may be one factor. They may not even know who Jamieson is.

But, at the same time, they may be the ones who have least internalized how short newspapers' reach is today. 

Maybe they're in denialism? Self-delusion at a conscious level of something they subconsciously know is true.

As someone on the far side of 50, I also think this is the "social media generation," whether Z, Millennial, Post-Millennial, or Post Toasties that has other reasoning behind being butt-hurt.

Kabuki theater.

Now that, said, as Porter goes on to note, with quotes from Collins and others, back then, local and regional endorsements mattered. They may still do so today.

And, not just on people.

I helped kill a bond election in my Dallas suburb in 2006, and it needed to be killed, as it was driven by the infamous Larry D. Lewis. It lost by a 52-48 margin, and both Lancaster ISD Superintendent Lewis and Lancaster City Manager Jim Landon were furious, though they didn't show me that much anger in person. On Lewis' side, he didn't know yet, but soon found out, how much I knew about problems with a school bond from two years prior. He still doesn't know about all the off-the-record personal stuff I was told. On Landon, I already saw the housing bubble coming. He shortly thereafter decamped to Florida's Gold Coast, where it hit him in the face.

Anyway, I have little doubt that my words made for the margin of defeat.

Now, if the two papers above, or the NYT, or whomever, wanted to catch attention, at least in the chattering class? An endorsement of either Libertarian Chase Oliver or Green Jill Stein would do that. Ain't happening.

Another option? Do like Reason magazine did a week or two ago with all its staffers, except confining yourself to editorial staff. Give each one, by name, 2-3 paragraphs to say who they're voting for and why. (Actually, Soon-Shiong allegedly asked for something like that, in a pro-con roundup, and staff refused.)

That itself was interesting. Setting aside one person apparently ineligible to vote as a foreign national, and another who may have moved too recently, the results? Eleven for Oliver, one for Oliver if they vote, two for Harris, four not voting plus one who never votes on principle, one possibly not voting, one write-in for Nikki Haley, one split as of the time of the story between Oliver and Trump (over "the left's" alleged antisemitism — nice to see one open Zionist at Reason, JD Tuccille), one Trump, one protest write-in for a Reason staffer.

To summarize with a bit of math and how I split out a few comments? That's 12 for Oliver, 2 Harris, 5.5 not voting, 1 Haley, 1.5 Trump, 1 true write-in. 

So, first, Reason is lower-l libertarian, but not necessarily Libertarian Party libertarian. Second, several specifically hate the Mises Mice. Of 23 total, Oliver gets a bare majority.

That said, per the above about the AJR story, at its end and local and regional races? Each staffer was asked about one other race they were keeping their eye on. Several mentioned ballot propositions, not personal races by candidates. Of that,several noted ranked choice voting initiatives, several noted abortion issues, and a couple noted Florida's marijuana legalization initiative.

Finally, a bit more thought on the Axios piece. Papers like the Minneapolis Star-Tribune also aren't doing presidential endorsements, but announced this weeks if not months ago. That's the problem with the two big newspapers above — the timing. Even if their owners aren't stopping endorsements for craven reasons, they leave themselves open to that. (And, given both Soon-Shiong and Bezos have lots of federal ties and issues, I think they ARE doing it for craven business reasons.) And, as for the Old Gray Lady in New York no longer doing LOCAL endorsements, but still doing presidential ones, that confirms they see themselves — and their subscriber base — as national newspaper first.

Science roundup: Starchy genes

Per Carl Zimmer, not only did the invention of fiber allow for the roasting of tubers and later, the roasting or baking of grains, as well as roasting meat, but a bit of evolution gave humans genes to create the enzyme amylase to break down starches.

That evolution came in two waves, actually, he says.

One was about the time generally guesstimated for the domestication of fire, and would of course spread globally as that was long before the exodus of modern Homo sapiens from Africa.

The other? About 12,000 years ago. That's before humans in Southwest Asia became sedentary farmers, but, it's right about at the time that they moved from pure hunter-gatherers to more of "multiple strategies" on their food, including more work on semi-domesticating wild grains. (We know bread was being baked and even toasted before this time.)

But wait, that's not all. Here's the tie to modern times and refined starches:

As ancient societies developed different diets, the new research suggests, they evolved to have different numbers of amylase genes. Dr. [Omer] Gokcumen speculated that people today who have fewer amylase genes may be more vulnerable to diseases like diabetes that are fueled by a starch-heavy modern diet. Down the line, the findings could point to potential amylase-based treatments for these diseases.

There you go.

The reason we know that the initial evolution was likely long ago is indirect, but smart. Neanderthals, we can tell, had also evolved extra genes for amylase creation. Peter Sudmant offered further correlation for the evolutionary timeline, but cautioned against trying to directly connect it to the domestication of fire at this time.

But wait, that's not all.

This new genetic information also has these scientists rethinking the role of amylase. They say that it may as much or more be for signaling the digestive and energy-distribution systems of the body in general that food is on the way, vs. being specific for starch digestion.

Thinking beyond the story, might this be a partial explainer for why many American Indians have such problems with diabetes? (Another partial explainer would be food deserts, as with African Americans.) Obviously, the second evolutionary round would have been after the first Amerinds entered the Americas, but the first evolutionary round could have had a small ingroup with fewer genes.

Metric Media is now pretending to be Catholic Tribune

 Yes, Metric Media, the king of the pink slime hill, and the Timpone Brothers, are hard at it. Actually, these "Catholic" journals, reports Pro Publica, started in 2020. But, per the story, they appear to have really ramped up this year.

Sadly, as PP notes, the Timpones have the backing of nutbar billionaire Peter Uehlein, owner of the Uline box and packaging company with the environmentally unfriendly doorstop catalogues.

Bye, bye Justin?

Politico magazine notes that a bunch of parliamentary backbenchers from Justin Trudeau's own Liberal Party are trying to persuade the Canadian prime minister to walk to the exit — and maybe to give him a nudge in that mythical nice, polite Canadian way if needed. (It is mythical, and that's the first, but not the only, think Politico gets wrong.)

As in the US, per those interviewed anonymously, politically strategic leaks have been part of the process, which makes the "this wasn't supposed to be public" disclaimer by one of the Anony Mice so funny.

The more serious problem is that, within the party, none of the top options as party leader seem keen to step forward, and most of them aren't well known, though some are better known than Politico claims. Theoretically, in a parliamentary system, that's not such a big deal, but can be. Those who are somewhat better known (contra Politico's claims), like Finance Minister Christya Freeland, might have their own baggage.  She, at least, most certainly does have baggage and certainly is well known by many Canadians involved in the political process, especially since the start of the Russia-Ukraine War. She's also been foreign minister and deputy PM, for doorknob's sake.

From my point of view, beyond Pretty Boy Justin still harboring people like Freeland, his administration's continued hating of Palestinians, most recently exemplified by kowtowing to both the US duopoly and Canadian Conservatives by putting Samidoun on Canada's terror list is another reason to kick his ass out the door. (That said, no other Liberal would be better on this.)

It's ALSO yet another reason to ask, what is the New Democratic Party doing to gear up for the next election after voting to end the confidence and supply agreement?

Update, Oct. 25: Pretty Boy Trudeau finds his inner Poppy Bush and says "Not gunna leave. Wouldn't be prudent." It WOULD, though, be self-delusional to think he has the best chance of defeating Poilievre's Conservatives.

Texas Progressives look at education and more

The Observer takes a deep dive into the latest political shenanigans, including astroturfing on Dallas ballot initiatives, by Mr. Pink Slime, Monty Bennett of the Dallas Express.

The former editor of UT-Dallas' student newspaper, shit-canned by the university over Palestine, has started a new unofficial student paper. He talks here about campus politics.

The Trib looks at five of the eight State Board of Education races. I see that Green Hunter Crow, running for Seat 11, is nailing down his perennial candidate status while also engaging in teh stupidz.

At the Observer, Justin Miller looks at the latest on the chances of Dade "Dade" Phelan to remain Texas Speaker of the House.

Judd Legum notes that the Montgomery County library committee's push to move a children's book about Pilgrims and Wampanoags from non-fiction to fiction has been reversed and the committee itself suspended by the Montgomery County Commissioners Court.

Off the Kuff published interviews with Kristin Hook, candidate in CD21, and Laurel Swift, candidate in HD121. 

SocraticGadfly takes a skeptical look at Voters of Tomorrow, which thrust itself into the news last week.

The Lone Star Project reminds us once again about Tarrant County's terrible MAGA Sheriff. (Ignore / reject LSP's ending about "vote for every Democrat on your ballot.")

The Current reports Kristin Hook's accurate assessment of Rep. Chip Roy's character. 

The Dallas Observer notes that our state is a national leader in "educational gag orders".  

Lone Star Left considers Democrat Sam Eppler's chances in CD24.

Robert Roberson gets justice for now at least

When Texas state House Republicans are the people intervening to prevent a likely innocent man from being executed, it's a big deal.

And it is, not just for Roberson, but for junk science and justice issues in Texas, right as early voting starts.

The Texas Legislature's law on junk science in the criminal system is now 11 years old. It's clear that appeals courts have a spotty record in following the law, and that — shock me — the Court of Criminal Appeals' record is abysmal. Ditto for the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, not elected, but appointed by the gov, which means Strangeabbott, rather than his usual Jesuitical posturing in such cases, could appoint better board members.

(I find it "interesting" that, even with the elections angle on the CCA, Charles Kuffner at Off the Kuff has yet to write in depth on this. He did post a Law Dork link in this week's Progressives Roundup, which I edited out because I'm writing this and because Chris Geidner.) 

Speaking of the CCA, the Trib reminds us that three of the five judges who voted against Roberson, including the odious Sharon Keller, got primaried because of Ken Paxton, and lost. If one of their three replacements flips, we have a different story.

And, the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence has apparently had it. Besides subpoenaing Roberson to block his execution, which worked, it has indicated it plans next year to amend the 2013 law to put more teeth into it.

One suggestion? Subpoena current CCA and Board of Pardons and Paroles members while you're at it.

That didn't happen, and because the Hail Mary worked for now, Roberson didn't speak yesterday. But, wingnut lite Phil McGraw and John Grisham did. 

Why wasn't Roberson there himself? Because AG Kenny Boy Paxton, of course:

Paxton said over the weekend it was too dangerous to bring the death row inmate to the Capitol. Instead, Paxton said he would have to testify via Zoom. 

In a letter to the House committee Saturday, Roberson’s attorney Gretchen Sween said Roberson wouldn’t be able to communicate effectively over video because he is autistic and is unfamiliar with modern technology, having been in prison for more than 20 years. 

The committee agreed with Sween and was working on an arrangement to have Roberson appear at a later date, according to committee chair Joe Moody, D-El Paso 

“That doesn't mean Robert won't testify at all,” Moody said. “In the spirit of cooperation, we are in talks with the attorney general's office right now about ways their position can be addressed while allowing our committee to hear Robert in person.”

What a shithead. But, I'm not shocked and I hope you're not, either. Disgusted is fine. And, if Kenny Boy tells you "no," Joe? Do you all go to his prison cell?? And if TDCJ Executive Director Brian Collier says you can't all do that at once??

As for the state constitutional issue? From the same story link immediately above, this:

In his comments ahead of the hearing, Rep. Brian Harrison, a North Texas Republican, said the House committee is well within its rights to subpoena Roberson and conduct a hearing. 

“If the House of Representatives cannot exercise legislative oversight to make sure that our laws are not just being faithfully adhered to, but that they are not potentially being so egregiously violated that it may result in the life of a potentially innocent person being taken by the government, then I would posit there may be no matter that could be subject to legitimate legislative oversight,” he said.

That district court hearing is going to be fun as hell.

Speaking of that board, Pardons and Paroles? The man who appoints its members, Gov. Strangeabbott, has broken last week's silence for the explicit purpose of excoriating the House committee. Abbott used the vehicle of an amicus brief in the case now back in the Travis district court where it began. And, the amicus was ONLY about the separation of powers issue, saying the committee "stepped out of line."

Meanwhile, per the "reminds" link, it takes 90 days after a prosecutor's request for the state to set a new execution date for Roberson. The state Supreme Court's remand to the trial court to address the constitutional issues will have played out by then, as will the election, and if we go the full 90 days, so will the seating of the new judges and the new legislature. More here, including a note that a month ago, the CCA had one "flipper" in its current numbers, and overturned the life sentence of a DeSoto man on shaken baby issues. Beyond that, per the court case? Let us note that the subpoena stands valid, as of now, through the end of the 2025 legislative season.

The Observer, before Roberson's reprieve, also weighed in on the current CCA elections and primarying, but added a look at Keller and how her two decades as presiding judge framed today's CCA.

What is shaken baby syndrome and is it misused? In this piece, the Trib notes that the doctor who originated the idea has largely disavowed it, even while the American Academy of Pediatrics has not only dug in, but expanded its version of the definition.

==

Interestingly, the new-look, paywalled Texas Monthly has no reporting of its own, but just copies Trib stories.

Amber Guyger denied parole; Jim Schutze must be crushed

The Dallas Observer reports, linking to the Morning News, that Dallas blondie ex-cop and convicted killer Amber Guyger was recently denied parole, halfway through her 10-year sentence.

I still remember how Jim Schutze, still at the Observer then, had an ever-increasing bromance for her, running PR flak for her racist family, then dove deeper. And, I wound up analyzing why, after the Observer finally kicked him to the curb. IMO, while his stance on Guyger wasn't the precipitating cause for being let go, it was the ultimate cause.

And, on the petard-hoisting angle? Schutze, hater of journalism unions (and maybe of unions in general) would have been protected on that firing were the Observer unionized then.

Presumably, far-right wingnut Jeff Melcher is also crushed.

Biden OKs new Israel attack on Iran; MSM, others complicit

Per the second half of the header, I want to expand on a restack note I did about Ken Klippenstein's piece last Saturday about the first half of the header.

First, the meat, which gets at both halves of the header:

Two Top Secret documents outlining Israel’s preparations for a large-scale attack on Iran – which would be Israel’s largest, and here’s what’s most interesting: the mainstream media is silent. Colleagues at some of the biggest media outlets, from The New York Times to NBC, tell me that their outlets are aware of the documents. But it’s been days and no one in the sanctioned elite press is reporting on them (Axios only just reported their existence but declined to publish the documents themselves). As with the J.D. Vance Dossier, which the entire media knew about but refused to publish, it appears the media has once again lost its nerve – and its sense of what’s news.

The mainstream media has generally decided that it won’t publish classified material, in effect deputizing themselves as enforcers of the national security state’s secrecy regime. They did this last year with highly classified Ukraine documents they refused to publish (which my editor published at Newsweek).

To put it bluntly, major media are petrified of running afoul of the national security state. And not without reason. My decision to publish the Vance Dossier got me thrown off X (Twitter) and links to the story were blocked on the platform along with Meta’s Facebook, Instagram and even Google Docs. Let’s see if that happens again here.

There you go.

First, the second half.

Although Ken didn't use the word "cowed," I did in my note. I think that's a fair inference of his implication, as he DID use the word "petrified."

(And, so far, neither he nor I appear to be thrown off Twitter.)

Rather, as noted in the second half of the header, "complicit" is the word.

This is different than the Vance dossier. This is Israel, and the mainstream media run that up the flagpole and salute that, period and end of story.

It may be in part fears about the national security state/deep state, but I think that's secondary, and even the secondary falls into two parts.

The bigger of those two parts is fear of loss of access. The "elite press," as Ken calls them, is also the "inside the Beltway" media, as Ken knows. Or "access journalism," as Ken also knows.

Within that, the stenos of the Nat-Sec Nutsacks™ Fighting 101st Keyboarders (thanks, Atrios), definitely don't want to lose access to insider intelligence sources. It's like a domestic version of being embedded.

Now, the leaks themselves.

As Ken knows, DC is a one-industry town, and the coin of the realm / grease that oils the machines, after money itself, is leaks.

From the White House and executive branch, leaks are almost always deliberate with political purpose.

(Genocide Joe now says he is "deeply concerned" about this, and his Nat-Sec Nutsacks™ spox John Kirby says the Waffle House doesn't know whether it was a hack or a leak. Sure you don't. That said, the Beeb says it explicitly mentioned Israel's nukes. But, that's a head fake to think that makes it a hack, not a leak. Could it be forged? Different question, but still highly doubtful.)

So, what IS that purpose?

One, per the "complicit," is to test just how complicit the MSM is. Now we have an update on that.

Two and related, is to prep the stenos for when the attack might actually happen and know what to ask.

Three? A pseudo-shot across Bibi's bow. As Ken notes, we spy on Israel. This lets them know what we know. But, per the oath for trial witnesses about the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, it surely does NOT tell ALL that we know. And, it may not have only truth in there, as far as the "nothing but," either.

As a pseudo-shot, in other words, this is another of those red lines that Genocide Joe continues to lay down on Israel for US public consumption that he has no intention of enforcing. This also is in the context of the presidential election, with early voting underway in many states. It's another way, via Genocide Joe, for Kamala is a Zionist Cop to look tough as well, even as she continues moving her own Overton Window right. Darth Cheney and the kiddies and sellout adults at Voters of Tomorrow who have Lincoln Project connections surely approve.

Three, part 2? Let's not forget, as many people know, and as Ken put in a previous post, but didn't link to in this one, that Merikkka just put a THAAD battery in Israel — with a US crew to run it to boot. That basically says "Do what you want to, Bibi, I got your back." That said, both that THAAD and the Iron Dome must suck if a Hezbollah drone was able to target Bibi's house.

Four? Ken calls out the Beltway stenos again in a new piece. Here's a key takeaway:

“Covert UAV operations” were observed on October 15, the NGA says, indicating that Israel’s RA-01 stealth drone was initiating a flight or returning from one, likely over Iran. Israel is flying stealth (covert) drones over Iran? That’s a story in itself. This would be a capability similar to the U.S. RQ-170/180 drones, which are super secret and barely ever mentioned in the U.S. media. But they are known to operate out of Chabelley airfield in Djibouti. Are they overflying Israel to take a look and thwart its “concealment” methods?

Complicit indeed is the MSM for not reporting this.

Ken also notes how part of US spying ON Israel is informed BY Israeli intelligence.

With that all in mind? And, the explicit mention of "nuclear"? We're now at the point of discussing what type of leak this is, as in, "political" or "principled"? (That said, principled leaks still have political angles.)

These docs showing up on an Iranian Telegram channel could be seen as supporting the "principled" angle, if the leaker is deeply serious about making sure all the Middle East players know. And, the "nuclear" is probably part of what pisses Biden off. The US now knows that Israel, and the rest of the world, knows that, behind closed doors at least, we openly discuss that Israel has nukes.

And, with all this? Any idea that a Harris administration could restart some sort of 2015 non-proliferation deal with Iran is toast.

The Gadfly slate for 2024 races

You've already seen my "Vote the Commie" for president, so we'll tackle other races here, with brief explainers.

Statewide races

Senate: Write-in Tracey Andrus. There's no Green, and Colin Allred is a ConservaDem in general and a genocide supporter in particular. Andrus is "interesting," but that is better than undervoting.

U.S. House, Dist. 26: Ernest Lineberger III may indeed be Ernest. He's environmentally minded enough to drive a Prius. But, his appeal to faith? That floats my boat no more from Democrats than Republicans, even if he's an ELCA Lutheran (I presume) rather than LCMS. And, teh Google says I presumed wrong. He's one of a minority of LCMS Lutherans to be Democrat. There's no Green, no write-in, and while Phil Gray seems to be a generic non-Mises Mice Libertarian, he is a Libertarian. Undervote.

Railroad Commission: Green Eddie Espinoza.

Statewide judicial races: None of the Democrats are ConservaDems, and state courts don't address federal issues, so vote the Democrats. Beyond that, Court of Criminal Appeals Rethuglicans refuse to follow the state's junk science law in cases like Robert Roberson. I mean, it's only 11 years old. When your own party in the state House is exasperated?

Regional races:

SBOE District 12: George King, the Democrat, is a public school teacher. Enough said. Vote him, even if he engages in a high level of veneration for the U.S. Constitution.

State Senate District 30: Dale Frey as the Democrat looks solid. Vote him.

State House District 68: Incumbent Republican David Spiller, while a Paxton impeachment manager, was a flip-flopper on vouchers in Abbott's last special session. In addition to being a wingnut Republican, the flip-flop is an additional issue. Democrat Stacey Swann is running on that issue.

Second Court of Appeals? All unchallenged Rethuglicans. Congrats to Texas Democrats for not running more candidates.