1. 3
  1.  

  2. 1

    Yup. Look at the stats: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_endorsements_in_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election

    Not one magazine endorsed Donald Trump for president in 2016, while 15 endorsed Hillary Clinton, according to that link. Newspapers were lopsided as well: 500 for Hillary Clinton and only 28 for Donald Trump. There were more “not Donald Trump” endorsements than pro-Donald Trump endorsements.

    And the few Trump-endorsing newspapers includes the Carteret County News-Times (circulation 9,725) and Vilas County News-Review (circulation 10,500). Those are dwarfed by Hillary-endorsing papers like the New York Times (circulation 1.1M), the Los Angeles Times (1M), and the Houston Chronicle in supposedly conservative Texas (almost 1M).

    This reminds me of Kurt Schlichter’s point about our national security elites:

    Its legacy of ashes is a national embarrassment. But then, the purpose of the currently-constituted intelligence community, the foreign policy community, and every wing of our incompetent, inept, and corrupt establishment is not to serve the people of the United States. Its purpose is to serve the personal interests of the currently-constituted intelligence community, the foreign policy community, and every wing of our incompetent, inept, and corrupt establishment. Its denizens fear that this fearless patriot is going to burn down their whole shoddy edifice, and we can only hope they’re right.

    Same with our media elites. Newspapers’ purpose (largely, not entirely) is now to serve the personal interests of the currently-constituted media elites and every wing of our incompetent, inept, and corrupt establishment. Its denizens fear that patriots are going to burn down their whole shoddy edifice, and we can only hope they’re right.