• 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

Fishking said:
It's not confusing at all. It's called a lack of professional integrity.
Click to expand...

As you wish. Good luck finding that one magic newspaper run by people with no personal political beliefs. Stop in from time to time to let us know how the big search is going.
 
Fishking said:
The made wasn't that they never endorsed anyone,
Click to expand...
Yer understanding is as poor as yer grammar, he clearly stated:

They could have stuck to their Conservative principles and endorsed no one.

..implying, recognizing that 1): The AZR is a con paper, has been forever, and 2) implying that the principle of a con entity is to endorse no one. It was a complete breakdown in logic, con entities produce endorsements all the time.


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.
Click to expand...
This is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, this conservative paper has the right to make any endorsement it wishes. This is not only a reflection of just how far the Dump is from conservative ideals, it is also a reflection of the changing demographics of Maricopa county....which the paper has to sell in.
 
Fishking said:
It's not confusing at all. It's called a lack of professional integrity.
Click to expand...
Yer argument is that this paper, which I seriously doubt you have any familiarity with, would have more integrity if it had endorsed Dump....or advocated for its die-hard followers to not vote for a POTUS candidate?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
They could have stuck to their Conservative principles and endorsed no one.

..implying, recognizing that 1): The AZR is a con paper, has been forever, and 2) implying that the principle of a con entity is to endorse no one. It was a complete breakdown in logic, con entities produce endorsements all the time.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what it means. It's pretty simple so I don't understand why you aren't getting it.

"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?"

They complained about Trump not being a conservative and then endorsed Hillary.

This is a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, this conservative paper has the right to make any endorsement it wishes.
Click to expand...

I never stated that they didn't have the right. I only stated that you cannot call yourself a conservative while endorsing Hillary. If there was a question as to the conservative credentials of Trump, then the conservative choice would be to endorse no one.
 
Fishking said:
No, that's not what it means. It's pretty simple so I don't understand why you aren't getting it.
Click to expand...
OK, yer not gonna recognize that I'm pointing out the problem with what luf said, not what the AZR articulated.

They complained about Trump not being a conservative and then endorsed Hillary.
Click to expand...
Yuppers. that wasn't what I was focused on, but yer dropping the comments from luf and going into what the AZR did....so again, so what?



I never stated that they didn't have the right. I only stated that you cannot call yourself a conservative while endorsing Hillary. If there was a question as to the conservative credentials of Trump, then the conservative choice would be to endorse no one.
Click to expand...
Again, a Scotsman argument....and arguing they would have more integrity as a shaper of opinion...to not have an opinion. Brilliant.
 
Cardinal said:
As you wish. Good luck finding that one magic newspaper run by people with no personal political beliefs. Stop in from time to time to let us know how the big search is going.
Click to expand...

Never said they didn't have political beliefs. You understand that people can have very strong political beliefs and not voice them, correct? Part of being in news to give at least an outward appearance of impartiality. For example, judges are expected to do the same thing while practicing.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
OK, yer not gonna recognize that I'm pointing out the problem with what luf said, not what the AZR articulated.

Yuppers. that wasn't what I was focused on, but yer dropping the comments from luf and going into what the AZR did....so again, so what?
Click to expand...

Nope, I'm not dropping what he said:

Lutherf said:
That being said, the paper had a choice. They said it themselves. They could have stuck to their Conservative principles and endorsed no one.
Click to expand...

He's saying exactly what I've stated. They complained about Trump not being a conservative and then endorsed Hillary, who doesn't even pretend to be a conservative. He only pointed out that they didn't stick to their supposed conservative principles by doing that. Now, you very well could be right in that they are seeing a demographic shift and are playing to that, but that would still represent a break in their traditional past. I don't know what the demographics are looking like there so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there, for argument's sake.

Again, a Scotsman argument....and arguing they would have more integrity as a shaper of opinion...to not have an opinion. Brilliant.
Click to expand...

So a Klan member can claim to be an egalitarian, eh?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Yer argument is that this paper, which I seriously doubt you have any familiarity with, would have more integrity if it had endorsed Dump....or advocated for its die-hard followers to not vote for a POTUS candidate?
Click to expand...

No. They were correct in stating Trump isn't a conservative. They would have maintained integrity if they had endorsed no one. It's really not that hard to do. It takes even less work than endorsing someone. You just don't say anything.
 
Fishking said:
Nope, I'm not dropping what he said:



He's saying exactly what I've stated. They complained about Trump not being a conservative and then endorsed Hillary, who doesn't even pretend to be a conservative. He only pointed out that they didn't stick to their supposed conservative principles by doing that.
Click to expand...
He, and you, are arguing that "sticking to a principle" would be to endorse NO ONE, yer both WRONG, that is NOT the principle an editorial board of a newspaper, specifically the AZR abides by. You keep avoiding this point.



Now, you very well could be right in that they are seeing a demographic shift and are playing to that, but that would still represent a break in their traditional past. I don't know what the demographics are looking like there so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there, for argument's sake.
Click to expand...
Their traditional past IS to endorse SOMEONE, that is the PRINCIPLE that underlies all, it is what they do as a publication every 4 years, endorse a POTUS candidate. It is essential to their "integrity".



So a Klan member can claim to be an egalitarian, eh?
Click to expand...
I have no idea what this straw analogy is supposed to reflect in my comment on the integrity of not producing editorial endorsement.
 
Fishking said:
No. They were correct in stating Trump isn't a conservative. They would have maintained integrity if they had endorsed no one. It's really not that hard to do. It takes even less work than endorsing someone. You just don't say anything.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I get it....a newspaper, its editorial board, a producer of the printed word, would have MORE integrity....if it was silent, did not produce printed words.

Thats some business model yer advocating for.

I suppose yer gonna cancel yer subscription too!
 
Gimmesometruth said:
He, and you, are arguing that "sticking to a principle" would be to endorse NO ONE, yer both WRONG, that is NOT the principle an editorial board of a newspaper, specifically the AZR abides by. You keep avoiding this point.

Their traditional past IS to endorse SOMEONE, that is the PRINCIPLE that underlies all, it is what they do as a publication every 4 years, endorse a POTUS candidate. It is essential to their "integrity".
Click to expand...

Their traditionalist past has been to endorse a Republican. They have never endorsed a Democrat. They had an issue with Trump not being a conservative. These are all things from their own mouths, yet it eludes you.

I have no idea what this straw analogy is supposed to reflect in my comment on the integrity of not producing editorial endorsement.
Click to expand...

Not a strawman, just an analogy to refute your Scotsman point. By your reasoning, an egalitarian could be a member of the KKK.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Yeah, I get it....a newspaper, its editorial board, a producer of the printed word, would have MORE integrity....if it was silent, did not produce printed words.

Thats some business model yer advocating for.

I suppose yer gonna cancel yer subscription too!
Click to expand...

You realize they can print all the words they want, they could even continue to be critical of Trump to their little heart's desire, without endorsing someone, right? Like, there is no requirement there and that it wouldn't hinder a single thing?
 
Fishking said:
Their traditionalist past has been to endorse a Republican. They have never endorsed a Democrat. They had an issue with Trump not being a conservative. These are all things from their own mouths, yet it eludes you.
Click to expand...
Uhhhhh....I have never disputed any of those realities, try again, champ.



Not a strawman, just an analogy to refute your Scotsman point. By your reasoning, an egalitarian could be a member of the KKK.
Click to expand...
Again, I have no idea how you got to that point, the point was YOU made the Scotsman argument that no true con paper could endorse a Dem, as if you are the arbiter of what con papers can/should do.
 
Fishking said:
You realize they can print all the words they want, they could even continue to be critical of Trump to their little heart's desire, without endorsing someone, right? Like, there is no requirement there and that it wouldn't hinder a single thing?
Click to expand...
Apparently, they feel that NOT endorsing SOMEONE for POTUS would seriously damage their integrity as a shaper of opinion. To give NO opinion...is NOT the job of an editorial board, as a matter of fact, it is their ESSENTIAL purpose. They might as well not have an editorial section at all. Maybe you can reach these weird conclusions because you don't really understand what a newspaper is.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Again, I have no idea how you got to that point, the point was YOU made the Scotsman argument that no true con paper could endorse a Dem, as if you are the arbiter of what con papers can/should do.
Click to expand...

No. No true con could endorse Hillary. She's not anywhere close to being a conservative. You cannot both claim to be a conservative while endorsing someone who goes against almost all conservative values. Again, using your own reason you could claim to be an egalitarian and be a member of the KKK. Because, you know, you can't say, "A true egalitarian cannot be a member of the KKK".
 
Fishking said:
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.
Click to expand...

You miss the point entirely. The endorsement is not about Conservatism, it is about a genuine threat to our Republic. That fact that you can't see that is telling.
 
Fishking said:
No. No true con could endorse Hillary. She's not anywhere close to being a conservative. You cannot both claim to be a conservative while endorsing someone who goes against almost all conservative values. Again, using your own reason you could claim to be an egalitarian and be a member of the KKK. Because, you know, you can't say, "A true egalitarian cannot be a member of the KKK".
Click to expand...
Yer argument boils down to "The AZ Republic is not a true conservative newspaper". Well there you are, you have a black and white POV, you make Scotsman fallacies, the reality of a paper that has a long conservative view rejecting Dump has caused you to end yer subscription (metaphor) and yer gonna argue that editorial sections should not express opinions. This whole Dump phenom has really messed with yer world, I can't imagine what Nov 9th is gonna be like for you.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
which the paper has to sell in.
Click to expand...

So then it's a business decision in order to maintain profits and not some morale crusade to defend conservative ideals like the paper is making it out to be. Thanks for pointing out how the Paper is wrong to whine about conservative principles when that had nothing to do with their decision.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Apparently, they feel that NOT endorsing SOMEONE for POTUS would seriously damage their integrity as a shaper of opinion. To give NO opinion...is NOT the job of an editorial board, as a matter of fact, it is their ESSENTIAL purpose. They might as well not have an editorial section at all. Maybe you can reach these weird conclusions because you don't really understand what a newspaper is.
Click to expand...

Actually "I choose to vote for nobody" is a valid opinion. Many people share that opinion every day: many on this very forum. An actual argument and debate can be had on the validity of endorsing "nobody" if "nobody" is conservative. The paper cannot claim "we support conservatism and therefore we endorse Clinton". That argument has no merit.
 
Cardinal said:
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."
Click to expand...

Having a section set aside for the opinions of the people is one thing, having section set aside for the opinions of the paper is something else entirely. The Press should be striving for as much objectivity as possible and have the press issue it's opinions on issues runs counter to that ideal.
 
reinoe said:
Actually "I choose to vote for nobody" is a valid opinion. Many people share that opinion every day: many on this very forum. An actual argument and debate can be had on the validity of endorsing "nobody" if "nobody" is conservative. The paper cannot claim "we support conservatism and therefore we endorse Clinton". That argument has no merit.
Click to expand...

It is because like many others, they see Trump as a real danger to our country and surprise! Country trumps conservatism. Isn't that how it should be? Stopping Trump requires a vote for Hillary, a vote for nobody is a 1/2 vote for Trump.
 
reinoe said:
So then it's a business decision in order to maintain profits and not some morale crusade to defend conservative ideals like the paper is making it out to be. Thanks for pointing out how the Paper is wrong to whine about conservative principles when that had nothing to do with their decision.
Click to expand...
I think they clearly laid out the rationale for their endorsement, that the Dump is not a con, but more importantly that he is not qualified to hold the office and that HC is. This time around, rational choice trumps ideology. As far as demographics of their readers and disagreement with their choice, they addressed that in the video accompanying the OP's link. Again, the primary objection, the main reason they could not endorse the Dump is because he is unqualified.
 
reinoe said:
Actually "I choose to vote for nobody" is a valid opinion. Many people share that opinion every day: many on this very forum. An actual argument and debate can be had on the validity of endorsing "nobody" if "nobody" is conservative. The paper cannot claim "we support conservatism and therefore we endorse Clinton". That argument has no merit.
Click to expand...
Again, for the hard of reading, for those who don't understand what a newspaper is, the job of an editorial dept in a newspaper IS to produce opinion, not to not produce.
 
Last edited:
faithful_servant said:
Having a section set aside for the opinions of the people is one thing, having section set aside for the opinions of the paper is something else entirely. The Press should be striving for as much objectivity as possible and have the press issue it's opinions on issues runs counter to that ideal.
Click to expand...
LOL...."I have absolutely no idea what an editorial dept of a newspaper is therefore I can say that newspapers should not have editorial depts expressing their views!"

Good gawd.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Again, for the hard of reading, for those who don't understand what a newspaper is, the job of an editorial dept in a newspaper IS to produce opinion, not to to not produce.
Click to expand...
"I vote for nobody" is an opinion. And it's ironic that you bring up "hard of reading" when your personal attack doesn't have anything to do with what I said. Sentient people would at least have posted something relevant to what I actually said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom