Visitors Now:
Total Visits:
Total Stories:
Profile image
By Reason Magazine (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Now:
Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:
Total:

Why Aren’t Other Journalism Outlets Disclosing Their Presidential Votes?

Tuesday, October 11, 2016 14:01
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

(Before It's News)

Warts and all, people, warts and all. ||| ReasonOn Sunday, like we do every four years, Reason published a list of who staffers, contributors, and people in the broader libertarian universe intend to vote for president next month. Critics, completists, and rubberneckers alike can compare it with our previous efforts from 2012, 2008, and 2004.

As I also do every four years, I am editing down the list here to “Reason staffers, contributing editors, regular contributors, and they’ll-always-be-one-of-us emeriti,” so that we have some decent data-sets to bookmark for the inevitable flame wars in the comments. In 2012, for example, among 25 thus-culled Reason-people, 15 were for Gary Johnson, two more were leaning that way, and eight were either not voting or presently unconvinced. I presented the breakdowns from 2004/2008/2012 in this post.

So what does the Reason-centric tally look like this year? Obviously, libertarians like to make their special-flower answers overly complicated to tally up, but my rough sorting of 26 Reasonoids goes like this:

Gary Johnson: 15

Not voting: 3 (Katherine Mangu-Ward’s cynical influence appears to be waning!)

Donald Trump: 1 (Jeff A. Taylor!)

Hillary Clinton: 1 (Steve Chapman!)

Hanan al-Ferjani, Salma Mohammed Abu Hasina al-Ja’arud, Fatima Aquil Salah al-Ja’arud, and a 9-month-old girl named Salma, who were all killed during the bombing of Libya: (Thaddeus Russell, obviously)

Lean Johnson: 3

Lean Clinton: 1

Lean not-voting: 1

So, we’re not quite as monochromatic as last election, but still heavily Johnsonized. More importantly, we are—once again!—virtually all alone out here in the supposedly pro-transparency world of journalism in letting our readers know where we personally stand. Slate does it every four years, The American Conservative did last time around (both have yet to weigh in this time), and, well, that’s just about it. What an embarrassment to the profession.

At least 103 daily newspapers have issued an official endorsement (or non-endorsement) of a presidential candidate, yet exactly zero to my knowledge have disclosed even who the Editorial Board staffers, let alone the supposedly impartial newsroom grunts, are going to check the box for. (The dead-tree endorsement count, by the way, now stands at 91 to 6, Clinton over Johnson, with a further 6 urging voters to not vote for Donald Trump.) U.S. News & World Report will publish bizarro invented conversations designed to mock the Detroit News for endorsing Gary Johnson, but won’t tell us who the commissioning editor backs. Trump tried to pre-slime debate moderator Lester Holt as a Democrat, but then it turned out that the NBC anchor is a longtime Republican, and in either case, wouldn’t it be interesting to know who (if anyone) he plans to vote for?

So show us your vote, ya cowards! And until you do, let’s dial down your transparency sermons a notch or four.

Report abuse

Comments

Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories

Register

Newsletter

Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.