"It's anti .... for a newspaper to endorse a political party/poltical candidate"?

It’s anti-fascist. Only authoritarian states censor editorial pages. Keep in mind that it’s not the newspaper endorsing a candidate. It’s the newspaper’s editorial board. So if the mere existence of opinion writers, editorial boards, and endorsements is part of why Trump calls the mainstream media “fake news” (a term that mostly referred to pro-Trump propaganda stories before he reappropriated it as “anything I don’t like”), then it’s just one more reason to think that he is the actual enemy of the people.

@Irukandji So, if editorial boards wouldn’t even imagine endorsing any candidate/party, it can’t be because they think it’s completely wrong, that it’s anti the role of a news provider? And how about just opinions from the public (columns by random Joe /Jill public, and/or letters to the editor?

@Irukandji You’ve added to your post after I responded. Ok.

The fact that it’s the editorial board makes it the newspaper endorsing it doesn’t it? That’s how it’s reported Newspaper x endorses…
By the way, my OP says part of, not the mere existence.

…So, if they don’t endorse anyone, you would say it’s a conspiracy or whatever you call it, they must have been muzzled by the state?

The free press is just that, the free press. They are supposed to report the news as truthfully as possible on their news pages but may offer opinions such as endorsing candidates or not endorsing anyone on their editorial or opinion pages.

If the Editorial Board chooses to endorse a candidate on their editorial pages, yes, it would be considered that that newspaper had endorsed them.

@janbb seems correct.

I’ll add that most media outlets have historically been liberal. The difference now is that people no longer trust media to deliver facts, but biased opinions.

The polls showing Hillary winning in 2016, to analyzing the debates (which were clearly biased) were just the beginning of ‘fake news’.

While I am not a fan of either party, my schooling in journalism only included facts, not opinion.

Reporting on NATO and how they werent paying their share was huge. Now that they are paying, theres not much more than a blurb. To me, thats bad journalism. Regardless of who its about.

Newspapers over here are usually take sides for example the Daily Telegraph is right wing and the Guardian is left wing. That doesn’t mean that one tells the truth and the other lies. Good journalists research stories for their intrinsic interest and their reports are worth reading even when they express opinions you happen to disagree with.

What goes in the blank in my OP though?
@KNOWITALL you mean re. @Irukandji‘s “Keep in mind that it’s not the newspaper endorsing a candidate. It’s the newspaper’s editorial board” versus @janbb‘s “If the Editorial Board chooses to endorse a candidate on their editorial pages, yes, it would be considered that that newspaper had endorsed them.”

….There is the reporting the news in a biased/ incomplete etc. (right or left leaning), which sometimes it can be incompetence. Then there’s a newspaper endorsing a candidate or party, which is on another level altogether. So, what goes in the blank?

@flutherother Journalists are supposed to just report what happened, (who said what, who did what, we couldn’t get an answer from….etc, just the facts). One of the things they study journalism school is, how to not let their opinions get detected by the readers. Opinions are supposed to come from columnists, and writers to Letters to the Editor section.

@flo “It’s anti… for a newspaper to endorse a political party/poltical candidate”? Fill in the blank.

It’s antithetical to journalistic objectivity for a newspaper to endorse a political party/candidate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_objectivity

@Pinguidchance Thanks! I just learned ’‘thetical’’ is a word. Is there another, a common word.

“So, if editorial boards wouldn’t even imagine endorsing any candidate/party, it can’t be because they think it’s completely wrong, that it’s anti the role of a news provider?”

Editorial boards are free to decide on their own what they think about endorsing candidates (note: editorial boards don’t endorse parties as a whole). If they think it’s wrong, so be it.

“And how about just opinions from the public (columns by random Joe /Jill public, and/or letters to the editor?”

Those get published all the time. That’s what the opinion section is for (and opinion pages frequently publish both letters and op-eds that express opinions contrary to their editorial board’s endorsements). Being informed requires more than just a mindless recitation of contextless facts. It requires thinking about the implications of those facts, which in turn requires inquiry and debate.

“The fact that it’s the editorial board makes it the newspaper endorsing it doesn’t it?”

No, because a newspaper is more than just the editorial board. The editorial board is the group that curates the opinion section of the newspaper.

“That’s how it’s reported Newspaper x endorses…”

It’s called “shorthand” or “metonymy.” When people say “the White House claims…” you don’t think it’s the actual building talking, right?

“By the way, my OP says part of, not the mere existence.”

And so does my answer, which you would know if you had bothered to do more than just scan it for something to disagree with: “so if the mere existence of opinion writers, editorial boards, and endorsements is part of why Trump calls the mainstream media ‘fake news’ (a term that mostly referred to pro-Trump propaganda stories before he reappropriated it as ‘anything I don’t like’), then it’s just one more reason to think that he is the actual enemy of the people.”

@Pinguidchance That’s why it’s a newspaper’s editorial board, and not its journalists, who write the endorsements.

@Irukandji an·ti·thet·i·cal adjective: antithetical 1. directly opposed or contrasted; mutually incompatible.
It’s like a medical doctor being an anti-vaxxer.

@flo Unlike you, I’ve known what “antithetical” means since I was a teenager. Endorsing a candidate is not antithetical to being an editorialist. Presenting opinions is a central part of their job.

And being anti vaxxer is a central part of medical doctor’s job.

@flo No, being an anti-vaxxer is pretty much the opposite of a medical doctor’s job.

@Irukandji ?

@flo I don’t know what your question mark could possibly be about, unless perhaps you don’t actually understand the words you are using. An anti-vaxxer is someone who is opposed to vaccines. You said that being an anti-vaxxer is a central part of a medical doctor’s job. I pointed out that the exact opposite is true. Providing vaccines is central to a medical doctor’s job. Opposing them is something that only scientifically illiterate people do. Some doctors may be scientifically illiterate, and others may pretend to be, but those are bad doctors (and are therefore not illustrative of what a doctor’s job is or ought to be).

@Irukandji I had no idea, wow.

@flo Basic concepts do seem to elude you with alarming frequency.

So, right, @Irukandji