The Economist endorses Kamala Harris, defending the president’s endorsement as an ‘exemplary’ of liberalism.
Tim Graham of the Media Research Center says that major stores refusing to carry Kamala Harris does not indicate an immediate change in The Bottom Line.
The Economist has endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for the 2024 presidential election, and several notable publications have opted out of endorsing the presidential race.
On Thursday, the editorial board announced it would endorse Harris over former President Trump in the days leading up to the election.
“Tens of millions of Americans will vote for Mr. Trump next week. Some will be true believers. But many will take the risk that in his place his worst feelings will take hold. We see that as recklessly reckless. By making Mr. Trump the leader of the free world, Americans will be gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace, on the contrary, there is a general, if the Economist has a vote for him,” reads this article.
The Economist defended his endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris over former President Trump. (Fox News/Getty Images / Fox News)
In a separate editorial, issued after their confirmation, the organizers also defended the right to declare the president’s approval as “not as a break from independence, but an example of it.”
LARRY KUDLOW: TRUMP’S RE-ELECTION RISE CONTINUES TO GROW
“In our newsroom, ideas are shaped by two important values: respect for liberal ideas, which have guided us since our founding in 1843, and the belief that ideas deserve to be challenged. Everyone, from a new hire to a 30-year veteran, is encouraged to speak their mind “Politicians are not evaluated according to their party, but according to their merits,” reads the editorial.
The Economist’s endorsement came after several major news outlets announced they would no longer endorse a presidential candidate. (Photo by Sarah Rice/Getty Images / Getty Images)
It continued, “We don’t tell our listeners what to think—we know that Economist readers will make up their own minds.” But in a world rocked by war, racism, climate change, bitter conflicts and more, explanations are not enough. People and choices here, clear ideas based on fact have real value—even if you don’t agree with them.”
The Economist’s endorsement comes days after the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and USA Today all announced they would not endorse a presidential candidate this year despite having done so for decades.
Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos explained in a statement released Monday, the paper’s decision not to endorse the presidential candidate was made to restore trust in journalism.
TRUMP DEFENDS BIG PAYMENT FOR PENNSYLVANIA STEELWORKERS: ‘SAVE ALL OUR JOBS’
Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos defended the decision not to endorse the candidate earlier this week. (Axelle/Bauer-Griffin/FilmMagic/Getty Images)
“We must be honest, and we must be believed to be accurate. It is a bitter pill to swallow, but we fail the second requirement,” Bezos wrote. “Many people believe that the media is biased. Anyone who does not see this is not paying attention to the truth, and those who fight the facts lose. The truth is an undefeated champion. It would be easy to blame others for our long and continuous fall. credibility (and, therefore, the decline of influence), but human thinking the victim is not a trick.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS
Source link
