[SyneRyder]

Why do newspapers even have to endorse candidates at all? Isn't the idea of newspapers telling people how to think - and how to vote - somewhat Orwellian?

I'd much rather that people vote for Clinton because they made up their own mind and decided she was the better candidate, not because "well everybody told me to so I guess I better do what they say". That's scary.

[chillwaves]

Expressing an opinion is "Orwellian"? When you use words in such a manner they start to lose meaning. Maybe that already happened and led to your post.

No, I do not think it is a problem for any person or editorial body to share an opinion. I do not see it as a form of mind control to be exposed to other people's worldview. And Trump is exactly as hideous a human being as everyone has pointed out, besides being a deeply flawed candidate who is in over his head and has no capability to deliver on even a fraction of (what little) he has promised.

[SyneRyder]

I started replying, but much of what I would have said is covered better by the USA Today post regarding their endorsement breaching their editorial ethics of neutrality:

"Endorsements might taint the objective reporting we were trying to do in the rest of the newspaper. Moreover, [USA Today founder Al Neuharth] felt it was elitist to assume we know better than everyone else when it comes to voting."

[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/10/04/disendorsem...

[ting_bu_dung]

wow, ever heard of freedom of speech? newspapers are free to express their own beliefs. you won't get that in Russia or China.