The far-left New York Times endorsed both Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar as the best Democrat(s) to challenge President Donald Trump.
This is the first time the Times endorsed two candidates, which means it’s not really an endorsement, just another attention-seeking troll from the failing media establishment.
And so, the Times is getting the reaction it wanted, which is a ton of outrage. Because…
As I’ve said before, the establishment media are no longer about informing us, all the media are about today is click-whoring by way of trolling. The media are now so broken and dispirited, things like reputation, credibility, and integrity no longer matter. There is no lie the media won’t tell, no outrage the media will not commit, even if it’s a ridiculous non-endorsement endorsement that only further undermines the Times’ already-shattered validity as a newspaper.
Guardian columnist Ross Barken tweeted:
“The New York Times didn’t think Bernie Sanders, who raised nearly $100 million in 2019 and now polls second nationally, was even a *top four* candidate worth considering for their endorsement.”
“What a newspaper,” he added.
In a follow-up tweet he wrote, “New York Times surprises no one, endorses Warren for president. Then makes a weird pivot to co-endorse Amy Klobuchar, best known for harassing her staff and belittling Medicare for All. Then! reveals Cory Booker was a ‘top four’ candidate but Bernie, or even Biden, wasn’t.”
Obama Bro Jon Favreau ridiculed the Times with this shot, “The New York Times even Both Sides’d its endorsement.”
As with most else in this episode, if this banal half-understanding of the state of the race even after having been granted the most extreme sort of access is the real tenor of conversation at the Times when cameras aren’t there, it’s dismaying. And if this is truly just a pose put on for the TV show about the Times, it suggests that Staples and colleagues have envisioned themselves in a seat Trump held before his seat in the Oval Office: That of reality-TV arbiter, a decider with power to move hearts and minds through televised charisma. The Times editorial board seems to want less to be a traditional media force than to have the new-media power of a decade and a half ago, to decide which Democratic candidate will be “The Apprentice.”
Carol Roth described the Times dual endorsement as “patronizing and cringey.”
“This is so patronizing and cringey,” she tweeted, “they can’t even pick one. ‘Oh, let’s be progressive and pick a woman! Well, we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. Let’s pick both, they won’t mind…’”
Disgraced former-journalist Dan Rather tweeted, “I endorse the Chiefs and the 49ers to win the Super Bowl.”
Slate poured on the ridicule:
Don’t like Warren? Well, don’t yell at the editorial board’s bosses just yet, because they hate her too, sort of! And don’t you think she’s just a little too patronizing? That’s why they also kind of endorsed Klobuchar, who’s currently polling at just under 4 percent. Mad about the Times endorsing Klobuchar? You can’t be, because they didn’t. Not really, at least.
The indecisiveness might have felt less grating if the Times hadn’t put so much effort into turning the endorsement into a spectacle in its own right. The promised inside look at how the Times made one of its most ostensibly important decisions of the year turned out to mean viewers spent an hour watching the paper crumble under the weight of its own self-importance. But hey, at least the ratings were probably good.
Tim Alberta of the far-left Politico tweeted, “I mean, newspaper endorsements are silly and self-important to begin with. But this Times bit… good grief. Have these people zero self-awareness?”
Nate Silver described it as “dumb”:
"Something dumb like that" is the winner https://t.co/2dx97F2GFV
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) January 20, 2020
Even those who work for the pro-Warren extremists at CNN were unhappy. “What a waste of time,” tweeted the fake news outlet’s Eric Bradner.
Here’s a few more…
A Warren endorsement would've had an impact. A Klobuchar endorsement would've had an impact. Splitting it down the middle waters down the impact of either choice. A negative synergy. https://t.co/ISkjoKMlZl
— Jeet Heer (@HeerJeet) January 20, 2020
THIS IS ALL SO STUPID https://t.co/SGIlpet7Zl
— Ashley Feinberg (@ashleyfeinberg) January 20, 2020
So…the NY Times has endorsed Amy Klobuchar AND Elizabeth Warren for the Democratic presidential primary? They do know only one them can win, right? https://t.co/HSUef3n00T
— Eric Deggans at NPR (@Deggans) January 20, 2020
Nevertheless, this is exactly the reaction the Times wanted…
Trolling for clicks, trolling for attention is today’s version of establishment “journalism.”