Their reporting is going to be objective from now on.  Hmmm
why the change?  Even this liberal newspaper could not in good faith
endorse President Obama so they instituted this change well ahead of the
Nov election.   Blahahahaha…

“candidate endorsements, …, promote the perception of a hidden bias”

They don’t get it.

Conservatives’ beef with mainstream media is not that they are liberal. It’s fine. Free speech. And we have our own media now. The problem is that they all pretend to be neutral, when they have a point of view (most journalists are centrists/moderates with a progressive bias on social issues). What are they afraid of ? Can’t the New York Times and others just say what everybody knows ?

This seems to be their “get-out-of-jail-free” card in the way of endorsements. 

As “RW” says, in good faith, they can’t endorse Obama, so this new policy takes the heat off of the paper. 

Face it, their “new” stand is designed only to cover their “butt” if Obama is re-elected.  It’s their way of saying “don’t blame us, we didn’t endorse him.” 

More rats deserting the sinking ship.
ROFLMAO!!

Chicago paper not endorsing Obimbo? Why does this news paper hate the first Black president?

They are thinking…. With a republican field so weak its common sense to vote for President Obama…..

I agree Newt Gingrich is a Rat…. I can see why the republican establishment is deserting him.

So many CROOKS, too few places to put them all.

How can you endorse President Barack Obama for president when he already is?

In case you haven’t heard, Obimbo will be a candidate in the upcoming election. Guess, they didn’t want to be embarressed by endorsing a looser.

The Sun-Times and the Tribune are both decidedly conservative newspapers, despite their endorsement of Obama in 2008 –   the McCain-Palin ticket was unsupportable. 
 If you read the Chicago papers, you would see they are conservative.  Their decision today shows me that papers are less influential than in the past.
Whenever a publication is not cheerleading a Republican platform or candidate, the Republicans decry the “liberal media,”  when in reality, the corporate-owned publications, radio and TV media industry is most assuredly conservative and favor the conservative perspective.

“She embodies trench warfare vs Republicans, and is consumed with beating them rather than unifying the country and building consensus to get things done.”

That’s from an Obama campaign memo from 2008 on Hillary Clinton, written by David Axlefraud, as part of the negative attacks the Obama campaign were going to attack her with, even though they claimed they were running a positive campaign and the media went along with the scam.

Anyway, that is the background of the memo. Anyone but an O-bot can see what a disgustingly cynical a-hole Obama is from this memo, especially considering that it is he, Obama, who embodies trench warfare with Republicans, consumed with beating the Republicans and dividing the country.

There is plenty more about the decrepit Obama campaign at this link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9032170/Barack-Obama-attacked-Hillary-Clinton-in-negative-campaign-leaked-memos-show.html

I anyone had the ability to look into Obama’s radical past, it would be a Chicago newspaper…but they won’t for some reason.

Sounds disingenuous to me. It looks like timidity, a newspaper afraid that it might alienate a
shrinking readership base by supporting a candidate and being branded
“liberal” or “ultra-conversative.” Newspapers attend political
gatherings and interview candidates 1 on 1 with the proxy of readers.
These readers have an obligation as citizens to inform themselves about
the officials they elect, and should be able to look to their
newspaper’s editorial board’s choice for guidance, not fiat.

The Sun-Times apparently is willing to shrug its shoulders–along
with its responsibility–and leave it to bloggers, partisan and
non-partisan, to carry on its duty. It is the job of reporters and
editorial writers to command issues and parse the differences among
candidates for the benefit of readers. Staying above the fray because
readers presumably complained that they didn’t need to be told for whom
to vote is a cop-out

Racism pure and simple.

No, what they are doing is making some distance between the most corrupt president in history and the newspaper. They want to avoid the infamy that supporting him will bring.

You, on the other hand are simply and irrefutably incorrect.

Total cop out.

Well, at least your name properly describes you.

What’s sad is that people like you really believe the crap you type out.  What a reasonably tame statement you post, yet in your sick mind you actually believe it to be some vicious, vitriolic smear.  You are obviously deranged from too much conservative talk radio and TV. 

Thankfully, you are in the extreme minority, and will be have to suffer through the coming Obama landslide before you realize how out of touch you are.

The vote in November is as much a vote against the MSM as it is a vote against Obama.

BTW: Let’s see if the liberal MSM  fact-check the State of the Union speech.  I suspect all the ‘True’ statements will be lauded and the ‘False’ statements will be unreported as usual.

I LOVE the honest, yet dishonest, admittance that in the PAST news papers (we can generalize to “news outlets” have been biased. LOL.. I guess now the paper can go to heaven with a clean conscience. 

LOL!  the negative attacks the Obama campaign ”WERE GOING TO” attack her with.  Hey, that thing you were going to do, that’s disgusting!  We don’t tolerate almost doing those things around here, mister!

So any comment from conservatives and the RNC in the effect that the only goal is to unseat Obama (consumed with beating the Democrats and dividing the country) is a disgusting cynical a-hole negative strategy and should not be tolerated, right?

The Paper, probably didnt want to seem like they only back Obama after the first term fallout and people like you making them leary about the general public acceptance of yet another Tribune endorsement of Obama. Good business on their part. They wont back Obama again, so they dont appear as if they support him leaving folks of your ilk to not boycott them, AND they do avoid picking from the NEW GOP circus-clown car of candidates which of course WOULD be backing a loser. Good business all around. Plus by admitting that “in the past” news outlets were “biased” the paper can feel purged of its past. Oh, for the record, since I know many people who post on this site are “historically impaired” here is THE QUOTE from 2008 ”
The Chicago Tribune endorsed Barack Obama Friday, marking the first time in the paper’s 161-year history it has backed a Democrat for president.” please note the “NEW GOP” has essentially ENDED a 161 year run. Congratulations idiots.

I guess you missed the part where they endorsed Obama in 2008. It was the first time in over 100 years that they supported a democrat. Makes you feel great huh? OVER 100 years of support given to the GOP and suddenly, as the NEW GOP starts to grow, giving us candidates like PALIN et al., a long LONG time supporting media source jumped sides.. YOU and your ILK have yourselves to blame. I congratulate you. It takes a LOT OF STUPID moves to have a century old endorsement jump ship.. Sure they arent supporting Obama this year, but guess what, they most certainly arent supporting the GOP idiots.. and yes, its also very very very hard to endorse a sitting president. In truth, incumbents are never “supported” its their job till they lose it and they have to run on their record, nothing more. My question to you and your loud ignorant goons is EXPLAIN how you are losing support? Dont worry, the same questions were asked in the early 80s when Democrats jumped ship to the GOP when dudes like Carter, Mondale, Dukakis (misspelled?) let them down.

You realize incumbant endorsements are rare like four leaf clovers right? Bottom line is The Tribune supported Obama when he was running against NEW GOP candidates and that endorsement was the first time the tribune has supported a democrat in over 100 years. Slap yourself on the back.. in 2008 you New GOP idiots started losing support and as of today its so bad that you’ve chased a news paper into not supporting any candidate running.

Uh, George Clueless.. they looked deep into his past in 2008 and gave him support. It was the first time in 100 years that the tribune backed a Democrat. Got anything else uninformed to add?

LIKE LIKE LIKE LIKE LIKE.. thank you MHANDRH! Though you are probably speaking way to intelligibly for the average Mediate reader. You probably would be better off saying: “THE TRIBUNE supported conservative candidates for over 100 years until the GOP party started nominating imbeciles. THEN they supported a democratic candidate for the first time ever. Great job GOP! NOW they have no one to support.”

Their 208 endorsement is probably why they are no longer endorsing. That much egg on their face must have been too much.

Look out, he’s on a roll. That’s so laughable!

Much egg? I believe Obama won in 2008. No? The big betters (IN-TRADE) have him at good odds of winning his re-election.

I suggest you read Krauthammer and Peggy Noonan’s latest editorials.
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-legitimize-obamas-reelection-rhetoric/2012/01/19/gIQA5pB5BQ_story.html

A very honestly typical double digit IQ statement. Think about what you just wrote. Well, unless you also feel that the entire field of GOP candidates sucks so the Tribune is avoiding future egging. Because thats the only logical explanation for your post. Either they go back to their old historic ways and support a GOP dude this year, or, as you say, after weighing Obama (egg) and the GOP options (rotten eggs), they are saving face and simply staying out of politics because ALL of the options are crap. I can agree with that.

It’s incumbent.

There is no GOP candidate as yet for anyone to endorse, so this is an exercise in diversion, nothing more.

They won’t endorse Obama because they don’t want to be blamed or accused by the people again. Supporting him has cost them plenty especially considering what he has done since arriving in the White House.

Drink!

You do know we’re in 2012 don’t you? It didn’t take that newspaper long to realize it’s mistake.

Now your backpedaling. You don’t believe your own rant. I bet you’ve got spittle all over your keyboard. Too funny, reading your childish support of your daddy.

Why cant I reply to your recent posts? Well maybe I can in a few minutes.. regardless.. The NEW GOP really REALLY needs to change because you guys are losing way too many support entities who were “count on” backers. The GOP used to take a Tribune endorsement for granted. NOW? LOL.. you guys -with or without Obama’s help- have chased them into no-endorsement land. Congrats.. thats hard to do. The levels of stupidity through which you would have to rise are paramount! But you did it. By the way ”
Now your backpedaling.” is a g-string comment. Are your panties bunched? WAIT WAIT.. I forgot, thats the NEW ConservativeGOP way.. make statements with zero substance, stick out your tongue and laugh. OK. and note: I dont vote so there is no daddy.

snif

You make no sense caconservative. Using your logic, I can also say that the paper looked at the current crop of GOP mental midgets challenging Obama. If they thought Obama sucked SO BAD (ie.they made a grievous error) and consequently, wanted to “correct their mistake” they would have endorsed the GOP nominee. Alas…they will not. Sigh. 

P.S. I hope you read those two articles I linked to you authored by CONSERVATIVES.

No

Its too hard to claim to be conservative, and ALWAYS hate the conservative candidates.

keep the vile coming

it ensures an Obama victory this fall

Newt was the best present “obimbo” could have received. 

and it’s “loser” not “looser”, loser

Since Obama lived in Chicago, an endorsement by the tribune would not have carried any weight.

They are a conservative paper, but they could not in good conscience nominate one of the clowns who have seized control of the republican party

We’re a year away from dethroning you Messiah. Hang in there we’ll school you on just how bad you’ve been had and before you know it, you’ll be voting Conservative.

Wow, so many words, and so little worthy of comment. Here’s a question, when was the last time the president submitted a budget? A budget mandated by law.
Is the budget getting in the way of his golf and Hawaiian vacations?
Hawaiian vacation = $4,113,038.00 of taxpayer money. Explain to be how this idiot justifies spending that kind of money on a vacation when so many people are loosing their homes?! Just how obscene is that?!!

Ouch. I understand why they won’t endorse a Republican. Their masters at the party HQ simply won’t allow them. But to refuse endorsing the “local hero”? Tsk tsk, Obama’s going to need some ice for that surprise kick to the nuts.

They should have grown some balls and endorsed Ron Paul.

The mean, terrible “MSM”….how dare they fact check something. 

 I guess Fox News viewers like RW have little relationship with fact checking on that network, so it probably throws them off when someone else does it.

I find it interesting how Republicans are constantly engaged in an effort to undermine basic institutions of American freedom.

The courts, the free press are two examples.  in each of these cases, the Right has systematically tried to destroy public trust in these institutions that are explicitly called for in the Constitution.

The Constitution guarantees a “free press”, which means politicians don’t get to tell them what to say/do.

Same is true with courts.  

I’m so sick of hearing Republicans whine about “unelected activist judges”….guess what, folks?   The Constitution calls for Supreme Court justices to be appointed. 

But instead, the Republicans have decided it’s to their political advantage to foster distrust in our American system that they claim to be so proud of.

We have a State of the Union speech tonight.  A perfect opportunity for the MSM to fact-check President Obama.  We’ll see.

Think he’ll mention it as been 1000 days since a budget has been passed by the Senate?

They’re not endorsing anyone.
At all.
Didn’t you read the story?

Well, here you go:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/fact-checking-the-2012-state-of-the-union-speech/2012/01/25/gIQAa5CTPQ_blog.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/jan/24/fact-checking-state-union-address/

Obama will win effortlessly.

More like the least corrupt president in history.

That is inverted observation.

Hardly. That’s why the House Republicans’ desperate scramble to find any example of corruption in the Obama White House have utterly failed.

Where in the hell have you been living the past three years? You don’t know what you are talking about.

Grand total of Articles of Impeachment leveled against Barrack Obama: ZERO.