WTF?
Um, huh? The News - that’s the ANN ARBOR News - has endorsed Bush.
In case you didn’t get that, The Ann Arbor News has endorsed Bush.
We defy Jay Nordlinger, who’s been very careful not to make an A2 reference since our second installment of Nordlinger Watch, not to say anything about this latest head-scratcher from the newspaper he likes to call “Pravda West.”
I would just note that the AA News also endorsed Bush in 2000, and editorialized against U-M’s affirmative action programs, and takes a relatively conservative stance on a lot of issues, so this isn’t a big surprise. I also think the editorial distorted Kerry’s position on the line about getting the troops out of Iraq in six months, when even a quick look at that speech shows that he said this could happen only if a number of security conditions were met. The News adopted the Bush campaign’s propaganda on this point and they really ought to have to run a correction.
posted by Matt on October 31st, 2004 at 3:16 pmThis doesn’t shock anyone but those right-wingers who like to rant about the media’s liberal bias and have to ignore conservative rags like the Snooze to make their point.
posted by Anonymous on October 31st, 2004 at 3:21 pmThe other thing I noticed about the editorial is that they somehow think it’s inconsistent to believe that entering a certain war is a bad idea and to believe that entering that war without enough troops to win is also a bad idea.
Opposing the U of M on affirmative action is not necessarily an ultraconservative position - I have a lot of reservations about the U of M’s policies and I don’t consider myself conservative. I just hope this doesn’t hurt Lumm by discrediting their endorsement of her.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on October 31st, 2004 at 3:22 pmHey, maybe it’s a Halloween thing? You know, Ann Arbor dresses up as a Republican for the night? It would sure beat the annual tradition of dressing up as a ‘naughty nurse’ or ‘kitty prostitute’.
posted by art student on October 31st, 2004 at 3:40 pmAnd as for them endorsing Bush the first time, I don’t think anyone knew how right-wing he was. This really is a shock to me.
I actually believe that, depending on your definition of “the media,” the media do have a liberal bias, in the sense that most writers and editors are liberal, and it influences their coverage on certain issues. (Publishers and owners tend to be conservative, and that influences their coverage on other issues.) But this bias rarely seems to end up helping liberal candidates. The charges of bias are so intense during election years that the media may end up overcompensating; you may recall that between the Times’ 2000 campaign reporters, Katharine Seelye on the Gore campaign and Frank Bruni on the Bush campaign, the former was noticeably more critical of her subject.
But the Times editorial board never endorsed Bush. Which is why I can’t believe that the News, which I’d always thought of as just slightly to the right of its constituency, would take this step.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on October 31st, 2004 at 3:41 pmart student - heh! Scary costume.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on October 31st, 2004 at 3:42 pmAAIO,
That’s a fair enough comment on the affirmative action issue. What I should have said is that the News does not tend to make well-reasoned arguments in its major editorials. The attack on U-M’s affirmative action policies did not mention the built-in bias in the undergraduate admissions process toward students from affluent areas and high-scoring schools, and it did not reference the context of ongoing racial inequality in Michigan, for example. The editorial for Lumm was an ad homenin attack on the mayor rather than a substantive critique of him, and it barely gave the reader any reason to vote for her. The editorial for Bush today misrepresented Kerry on a number of positions and the criticisms of Bush seemed to contradict the endorsement. The editorial page is pretty conservative, take it or leave it, but it is also often unclear and not well-reasoned.
I don’t think it will have an impact on Lumm. The mayor and Kerry are going to get probably 70% or more of the Ann Arbor vote, I would guess, suggesting the AA News editorial voice is not that relevant.
posted by Matt on October 31st, 2004 at 4:43 pmJohn Hieftje cannot recognize having ever made any mistakes. He polarizes and divides people. He has squandered the good will of the moderate electorate and our neighbors. He is resolute even when wrong.
Vote Lumm.
George W. Bush cannot recognize having ever made any mistakes. He polarizes and divides people. He has squandered the good will of the moderate electorate and our neighbors. He is resolute even when wrong.
Vote Bush.
Consistency?
posted by Dan on October 31st, 2004 at 5:35 pmEven more interesting is that they were too gutless to actually put Bush’s name in the headline.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on October 31st, 2004 at 6:25 pmWell said Dan.
posted by Anonymous on October 31st, 2004 at 7:01 pmSo, who’s staying up all month to watch the election returns?
posted by sammy on October 31st, 2004 at 7:02 pmBut the AA News did have a kick ass article about the international rock-paper-scissors competition (and the Ypsi resident who won the bronze).
As for affirmative action, it seems confusing to define the position based on your self-perception. You don’t have to necessarly consider yourself a conservative overall, but the conservative position is to oppose the university’s use of affirmative action.
posted by Andrew on October 31st, 2004 at 7:16 pmLarry, good point. The whole editorial is gutless — the News won’t come straight-out and say they support Bush without first dismissing a vote for Bush as flawed… but not AS flawed as Kerry. One might say, they’re trying to eat their cake and have it too. They don’t want to offend their Democratic readership with a resolute backing of Bush. They’re hoping to appeal to any fear or doubt a voter might have in Kerry as president. The Halloween theme I detect is change is scary like a horror-house.
posted by Eric on October 31st, 2004 at 7:45 pmwell, it’s a more conservative position than the alternative, but not a position that you’d only expect a conservative to have.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on October 31st, 2004 at 8:12 pmI’ve seen more than one endorsement for Bush that has been preceeded by similar statements that Bush isn’t that much better than Kerry, but they still choose Bush over Kerry - such as the Chicago Tribune, to name one such endorsement.
posted by paul on October 31st, 2004 at 9:10 pmFor me, the Bush endorsement absolutely undermines their support for Lumm. I’m very new to Ann Arbor, and was pretty shocked by the Hieftje/Lumm editorial. At that point, it seemed like a powerful argument, and it made me seriously consider voting for Lumm. But now that I read their Bush endorsement — which was very, very poorly written and argued — and reading Larry’s analysis of Lumm as an empty blouse, I’m voting for Hieftje.
posted by Mike on October 31st, 2004 at 9:27 pmLarry and I agree on most things, but I like Lumm. In the debate Friday, she did sound like she was reading from a script during her opening statement. But answering questions, she displayed a clear command of the issues. Her speaking style never became dynamic or exciting, which Hieftje’s is at least to some degree, but she obviously knew what she was talking about. I can see how a reliance on notes in public speaking might be interpreted as indecisive or uninformed, and that might be what’s happened with her.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on October 31st, 2004 at 9:58 pmI admit, I’m surprised and impressed that Lumm came out forthrightly for accessory units.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on November 1st, 2004 at 12:25 amFor the record, the Ypsi Courier has been running (freelance) editorials strongly in favor of Kerry. No official endorsement either way from the paper, though. The yard-sign boildown here indicates an equal split–significant support for voting down Prop 2 is evident. Once you venture into rural areas outside Ypsi, the Bush/Cheney signs become more numerous and bigger (where are these people getting their hideous 8 by 4 foot Bush-Cheney signs, one wonders?)
posted by Laura on November 1st, 2004 at 1:48 amI like how the Detroit News endorsed None of the Above.
posted by George on November 1st, 2004 at 11:38 amSunday’s Jackson Citizen Patriot (a sister paper to the A2 News) had a very similar endorsement of Bush (Danger Will Robinson! Terrorism! Terrorism!!). Of course, the Jackson publisher is married to the Ann Arbor editor, so they’re keeping fascism in the family. I happily cancelled our News subscription yesterday morning.
posted by Diane on November 1st, 2004 at 11:49 amI have ignored the Ann Arbor News since moving here in 1999 because it is a very bad newspaper — hardly local, badly produced. Now, I will spend my days advising people to read anything else but. The New York Times, People’s Weekly World, Weekly World News — anything.
posted by Alan on November 1st, 2004 at 12:07 pmI’ve always hated the News. Poorly written, bad stories, boring… and did I mention boring? Even interesting stories are boring in the AA News. Plus they have too little coverage of important local issues and the national “coverage” is laughable. The worst of all worlds.
They used to call me all the time and ask me to suscribe. I was polite the first ten or so times, but after a while, when they asked why I didn’t want to subscribe, I told them that it was “just a spectacularly bad paper”. (it didn’t work, BTW, they kept calling).
posted by Anna on November 1st, 2004 at 12:24 pmDude, I’m amazed. Didn’t you all know the Snooze has always been far right of Ann Arbor, Nordlinger’s mincing excepted?
posted by js on November 1st, 2004 at 12:31 pmJeez, of course it endorsed Bush. It would endorse Mussolinni if he promised to ban couches on porches.
But the News was against the porch couch ban. Which probably makes them more “right-wing” in the crazy local politics of Ann Arbor, but doesn’t suggest support for Bush.
posted by ann arbor is overrated on November 1st, 2004 at 12:37 pmI’ll defend the News a bit. Compared to most other newspapers of a similar size, they actually have a much larger percentage of news vs. advertising and run a much larger number of wire stories and NYT articles and the like. If you think the News is bad you should live in a town with a Gannett paper where the goal is to have no news and all ads. Gannett papers now even have an advertising strip across the bottom of the front page. The family corporation that owns the News has a policy of not downsizing workers for economic reasons, unlike the union-busting stock market-obsessed media chains like Gannett and Knight-Ridder. The local coverage in the AA News is often quite good, small-town rock-paper-scissors stories notwithstanding. It could be broader in scope, could give us more of a sense of Michigan issues beyond Washtenaw County. My biggest complaint is with the editorial page which is conservative, incoherent, inconsistent, terribly reasoned and badly written.
posted by Matt on November 1st, 2004 at 12:38 pmI’ll have to respectfully disagree. I lived in AA for ten years, and although I hated it, I read the AA News regularly (though never subscribed). I STILL felt like I didn’t have a handle on local news and government. They write stories with almost zero content — they take things completely out of context, report on small snippets of local events without any of the whys or wherefores, and are generally inadequate in terms of local reporting. I don’t want national coverage from a local newspaper — I would rather get that from a good newspaper, and anyone who relies on the AA News for national event coverage is going to be woefully under-informed. That’s why I think they should stop trying and focus on their most critical task — local news, especially policy and government. All I ask for is decent coverage of local issues, and AA News completely fails. Being better than a Gannett paper is very faint praise, but even at that, I don’t think it’s true.
posted by Anna on November 1st, 2004 at 12:57 pmI would like to congradulate the A-squared snooze on going where the Detroit News even dared to go! So, Ann Arbor has a local poop-snapper even further to the right than the Detroit News! I say, GREAT! Almost NOBODY in this town will have any respect for the Ann Arbor News from this date on, which I think is a GOOD thing! (Who elected them for anything anyways?) Hopefully, a non-endorsement from the snooze will be a badge of honor and an endorsement will be the kiss of death in this town. Also, this is great news for bloggers because people should realize better the need to look for alternative sources for their news (especially at the local level.) O.K. A-squared bloggers, get ready to hammer the snooze from now ’till forever on their endorsement!
posted by Chuck on November 1st, 2004 at 4:09 pmYou’re right; the Snooze did come out against the porch couch ban in a moment of clarity and accidental libertarianism. But their historical record is much closer to reactionary conservative than even middle-of-the-road Republicanism. Take a look at nearly every social issue ever up for consideration in Ann Arbor- if it in any way bothers the absolute right to dispose of property in any way the owner sees fit (including, of course, infringements through taxation), the Snooze is not just against it but violently against it.
posted by js on November 1st, 2004 at 4:24 pmAnd c’mon, wire-service articles aren’t a plus! They’re a symptom of lazy journalism!
All I can say is that I’m glad I don’t have a subscription. It’s fun to read the local section at times, but if I want actual news, I’ll just go to the BBC World News website for world and national stuff. Hell, they probably had as much stuff on the affirmative action debate last year as the AA News did (probably better analysis, too, although I can’t quite remember).
posted by Lazaro on November 1st, 2004 at 4:38 pmWho’da thought there’d be a day when the Ypsi Courier would seem more credible than the “News”?
One gets better, the others get worse. Even the Daily (possibly the best paper in the area by default?) gave up on local race reports?!?
posted by Leighton on November 1st, 2004 at 4:56 pmNot exactly. The Daily editors pointed to their reporting on CITY races as an excuse for not bothering with COUNTY races. In any case, it is irresponsible and utterly inexcusable. The Daily simply can’t be taken seriously as journalism until the current staff is gone.
I stand by my earlier defense of the Ann Arbor News as a paper that actually bothers to report on local issues. I grew up with the Gannett-owned Lansing State Journal, which makes MUCH less of an effort.
posted by Larry Kestenbaum on November 1st, 2004 at 7:20 pmI’ve lived in a lot of places, and the AA news is the absolute worst I’ve seen — including a small town *weekly* newspaper that did a better job of informing me about local issues. Caring isn’t enough. A newspaper and its editors need to be competent, which the AA News has been shown over and over not to be. It speaks volumes that the Daily, a newspaper run by full-time students, is even in play as a competitor.
posted by Anna on November 1st, 2004 at 10:21 pmQuite frankly, I’m not sure this endorsement’ll make much of a dent in Nordlinger’s delusional little Weltanschauung. We had a professor at Akron who reminisced about one of his own mentors, who honestly believed the Sino-Soviet split of the 1960s to be a Communist plot to lull the Free World into a false sense of security. Those Red bastards at the News are just stalling for time in order to complete their plans for world domination.
posted by Lazaro on November 2nd, 2004 at 3:49 pmi heard about this rumor and checked with my boss, and all my co-workers….even the publisher’s secretary because her office is down the hall from mine.
I work for the Ann Arbor News, and I can ASSURE you, that we did NOT indorse Bush this year.
posted by Kelly on November 4th, 2004 at 1:33 pmErrrrr… Huh?
Kelly, did you follow the link?
posted by Anna on November 4th, 2004 at 2:05 pm