• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizona Republic publisher responds to threats

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,822
Reaction score
8,296
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
Recently the Arizona Republic newspaper endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. It was the first time in the 125 year history of the paper that it had endorsed a Democrat. The response has not been pleasant for the paper's employees, whether they are receptionists, reporters or young people selling the paper.

How do we respond to threats after our endorsement? This is how

More than a year ago, The Republic’s editorial board began taking a stand against the actions and positioning of Donald Trump. In piece after piece, we made it clear that his principles weren’t conservative. They were bad for the party, bad for Arizona, dangerous for America.

But in its more than 125 years, The Republic had never endorsed a Democrat for president. So, over the many months of the campaign, we found ourselves with this question: Endorse no one, or endorse a Democrat for the first time in our history?

We made our choice soberly. We knew it would be unpopular with many people. We knew that, although we had clearly stated our objections to Trump, it would be a big deal for a conservative editorial board in a conservative state to break ranks from the party.

We chose patriotism over party. We endorsed the Democrat.

And then the reaction started pouring in. Threats against our business. Threats against our people.

For those who take the time to click thru to the paper's website - please note that along with their endorsement of Hillary they have also endorsed John McCain, "the Senate's Rock of Gibraltar", as they call him.
 
Recently the Arizona Republic newspaper endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. It was the first time in the 125 year history of the paper that it had endorsed a Democrat. The response has not been pleasant for the paper's employees, whether they are receptionists, reporters or young people selling the paper.



For those who take the time to click thru to the paper's website - please note that along with their endorsement of Hillary they have also endorsed John McCain, "the Senate's Rock of Gibraltar", as they call him.
I was going to claim this was old news, until I read the article.

Powerful.

That's all I've got to say, besides "I can't wait for the next three weeks to go by"!
 
I was going to claim this was old news, until I read the article.

Powerful.

That's all I've got to say, besides "I can't wait for the next three weeks to go by"!

There aren't a lot of times I wish I had a time machine. This is one of them.
 
Unpopular decisions are often met with anger and threats. That's nothing new. There are crazies out there along with the hoards of keyboard warriors and phone call antagonists. Anonymity makes some people feel like they can say anything.

Those who threatened the people at the Republic should be ashamed of themselves.

That being said, the paper had a choice. They said it themselves. They could have stuck to their Conservative principles and endorsed no one. They chose, instead, to endorse on of the most corrupt politicians we have ever seen and a woman whose agenda encompasses ideas which are anathema to Liberty, Justice and limited government. They didn't stick to Conservative principles and didn't stand up for the people of this State.
 
There aren't a lot of times I wish I had a time machine. This is one of them.
Yeah Cardinal, I'm finding this whole thing pretty appalling.

And while I love debates, I'm not looking forward to this last one. I wouldn't miss it for anything, but it's not because I'm looking for enjoyable discourse. That last debate was one of the darkest public events I've ever seen. The audience didn't seem happy even being there!

Can Burr-Hamilton be far behind?
 
Unpopular decisions are often met with anger and threats. That's nothing new. There are crazies out there along with the hoards of keyboard warriors and phone call antagonists. Anonymity makes some people feel like they can say anything.

Those who threatened the people at the Republic should be ashamed of themselves.

That being said, the paper had a choice. They said it themselves. They could have stuck to their Conservative principles and endorsed no one. They chose, instead, to endorse on of the most corrupt politicians we have ever seen and a woman whose agenda encompasses ideas which are anathema to Liberty, Justice and limited government. They didn't stick to Conservative principles and didn't stand up for the people of this State.
I suspect you know more than I about AZ politics. But since when are threats of violence an accepted part of Americans choosing a political lean? This seems more than excessive, IMO.

And this is the problem in our country today: No one wants to respect their fellow citizen's opposing views or votes.

I think the hard-core Trump guys are borderline loony, for the most part. But if they act lawfully and respectfully, I can respect them. I can respect their choice, as wrong as I think it may be, and I can abide by it. It's because I love this country & its Constitution more than any political party or lean.

But this violence crap & violence threats is ridiculous, and does not deserve any respect at all.
 
There aren't a lot of times I wish I had a time machine. This is one of them.

Thankfully, I'm going to miss the last week of all this. Vacation somewhere outside the US, but back in time to vote...can't come too soon.

The Trump fans are vile.
 
I suspect you know more than I about AZ politics. But since when are threats of violence an accepted part of Americans choosing a political lean? This seems more than excessive, IMO.

And this is the problem in our country today: No one wants to respect their fellow citizen's opposing views or votes.

I think the hard-core Trump guys are borderline loony, for the most part. But if they act lawfully and respectfully, I can respect them. I can respect their choice, as wrong as I think it may be, and I can abide by it. It's because I love this country & its Constitution more than any political party or lean.

But this violence crap & violence threats is ridiculous, and does not deserve any respect at all.

The threats of violence, while fairly common, generally come from just a few people. If you talk to pretty much any media personality you'll find that they have received threats just like these. Just look at the crap that gets posted on Twitter and Facebook.

The kind of behavior the article discusses isn't limited to the Arizona Republic or Trump supporters.
 
Good article.
Those who have made threats should reevaluate what they did. imo, their actions are shameful and disgusting.

While it is true this is the first time the AZ Republic has endorsed a Democrat for President, the editorial board and many of their articles have not been neutral for years. Many of their stories tend to lean left. So much so I dropped my subscription years ago. I believe in the freedom of the Press. Yet so many news stories reported in papers, radio and tv are nothing more than editorials.

(been in AZ almost 30 years.)
 
I've spent the better half of a year here in Arizona and I can say without a doubt their is something in the water that makes people act bonkers.
 
Unpopular decisions are often met with anger and threats. That's nothing new. There are crazies out there along with the hoards of keyboard warriors and phone call antagonists. Anonymity makes some people feel like they can say anything.

Those who threatened the people at the Republic should be ashamed of themselves.

That being said, the paper had a choice. They said it themselves. They could have stuck to their Conservative principles and endorsed no one. They chose, instead, to endorse on of the most corrupt politicians we have ever seen and a woman whose agenda encompasses ideas which are anathema to Liberty, Justice and limited government. They didn't stick to Conservative principles and didn't stand up for the people of this State.
Yep. That's why so many people see the media for the establishment cronies they are. All these establishment types, from newspapers, to ex-staffers, to politicians: they all have the choice to endorse NOBODY if they were really that concerned. Not liking Trump doesn't all of a sudden mean that Hillary becomes a Golden bastion of conservative ideals. It means that all these Republican and so called conservatives are not actually conservative at all.
 
Recently the Arizona Republic newspaper endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. It was the first time in the 125 year history of the paper that it had endorsed a Democrat. The response has not been pleasant for the paper's employees, whether they are receptionists, reporters or young people selling the paper.

For those who take the time to click thru to the paper's website - please note that along with their endorsement of Hillary they have also endorsed John McCain, "the Senate's Rock of Gibraltar", as they call him.

So their response to Trump not being a conservative is to endorse someone who is even less of a conservative? I'm not sure how that makes sense. That aside, any new agency that openly declares support for any political candidate should be automatically dismissed, ignored, and run out of business.

That's not the role that new agencies are supposed to play.
 
So their response to Trump not being a conservative is to endorse someone who is even less of a conservative? I'm not sure how that makes sense. That aside, any new agency that openly declares support for any political candidate should be automatically dismissed, ignored, and run out of business.

That's not the role that new agencies are supposed to play.

Editorial boards have endorsed candidates for various offices for well over a century, if not longer.
 
Editorial boards have endorsed candidates for various offices for well over a century, if not longer.

Doesn't change how I feel. It's my position that anything related to news should strive for as much impartiality as possible.
 
I've spent the better half of a year here in Arizona and I can say without a doubt their is something in the water that makes people act bonkers.

A friend of mine lived there for a while in the 1970's. She and her then partner had a child but they weren't married. When the locals found out they were ostracized and if people had to walk past their house they used to hold a hand up at the side of their face so as not to see the sin that was going on.
 
Doesn't change how I feel. It's my position that anything related to news should strive for as much impartiality as possible.

There is no such thing as an impartial newspaper.
 
Doesn't change how I feel. It's my position that anything related to news should strive for as much impartiality as possible.

The editorial page is the format where people, including those who work for the media directly, get to voice their personal opinions.
 
The editorial page is the format where people, including those who work for the media directly, get to voice their personal opinions.

Which, while interesting in it's opportunity that is provided, usually only serves to shred any credibility that may still exist.
 
Which, while interesting in it's opportunity that is provided, usually only serves to shred any credibility that may still exist.

So because a portion of the paper is set aside for the opinions of Americans, that paper is discredited. Right.

I suggest you read your posts out loud to yourself before hitting "post."
 
That being said, the paper had a choice. They said it themselves. They could have stuck to their Conservative principles and endorsed no one.
Um, the AZ Republic has been making political endorsements since like...forever, as far as I can remember, going back to when my older brother was a Phoenix Gazette paperboy in the 60's.
 
A friend of mine lived there for a while in the 1970's. She and her then partner had a child but they weren't married. When the locals found out they were ostracized and if people had to walk past their house they used to hold a hand up at the side of their face so as not to see the sin that was going on.

Sounds like Mesa...where the local time is 1960! The rest of the metro area is not like that.
 
So because a portion of the paper is set aside for the opinions of Americans, that paper is discredited. Right.

I suggest you read your posts out loud to yourself before hitting "post."

"including those who work for the media"

Sorry, that's no-go.
 
Um, the AZ Republic has been making political endorsements since like...forever, as far as I can remember, going back to when my older brother was a Phoenix Gazette paperboy in the 60's.

The made wasn't that they never endorsed anyone, it was that if they didn't believe Trump to a be a conservative they then don't just go ahead and endorse someone even less conservative. The conservative choice would be to endorse no one.
 
"including those who work for the media"

Sorry, that's no-go.

It's only a no-go for people who easily confuse the editorials for the news. The difference is not lost on me. I'm also sorry you think that people who work in the media have given up their first amendment rights.
 
It's only a no-go for people who easily confuse the editorials for the news. The difference is not lost on me. I'm also sorry you think that people who work in the media have given up their first amendment rights.

It's not confusing at all. It's called a lack of professional integrity.
 
Back
Top Bottom