Image 01 Image 03

Newspapers Lose Subscribers After Hillary Endorsements

Newspapers Lose Subscribers After Hillary Endorsements

“The subscription cancellations were coming every 10 minutes”

I saw this one coming when I first saw the Arizona Republic’s Hillary endorsement, but it seems to be rather more widespread.

The New York Times reports:

The subscription cancellations were coming every 10 minutes. Angry readers have been calling in droves. One caller issued a death threat.

“We’re feeling the weight of our history,” Phil Boas, the editorial page editor of The Arizona Republic, said in a telephone interview on Wednesday. Until it endorsed Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, the newspaper, founded in 1890, had never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president.

In endorsing Mrs. Clinton, The Republic’s editorial was, by any interpretation, scathing toward her opponent, Donald J. Trump. “Trump responds to criticism with the petulance of verbal spit wads,” the editorial says at one point. “That’s beneath our national dignity.”

. . . . The newspaper is not the first this year to break with its long tradition of endorsing Republicans for president. The Dallas Morning News, which had not supported a Democrat for president since before World War II, and The Cincinnati Enquirer, which has endorsed Republicans for nearly 100 years, have backed Mrs. Clinton. The Houston Chronicle, which has in the past endorsed a Democrat for president but which typically supports Republicans, eschewed Mr. Trump in July, long before endorsements are generally published in an election year.

. . . .  For some readers, however, the endorsements proved a step too far. “Certainly, we’ve paid a price for our presidential recommendation,” Mike Wilson, the editor of The Dallas Morning News, told Poynter this month.

Mr. Boas of The Arizona Republic said he expected “a lot of cancellations,” pointing to cancellations at The Cincinnati Enquirer, which like The Republic, is owned by Gannett.

Apparently, this election poses unique challenges to traditionally right-leaning media . . . and to their subscriber base.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


the newspaper, founded in 1890, had never endorsed a Democrat over a Republican for president.

Picked a helluva time to start, didn’t they?

A cancellation every ten minutes isn’t much; about a thousand a week if it keep up 24/7. The Arizona Republic is one of America’s top two dozen papers, with a weekday circulation of over a quarter million. A thousand a week is small potatoes.

In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.

This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.

There’s another one.

“That’s beneath our national dignity.”?? Newsflash Boas, we have no national dignity left. We can thank all you left leaning morons for the mess, along with all the gutless Repuglikins playing along as well.

A couple of weeks ago I posted that the Houston Chronicle seemed to be exhibiting a noticeably less biased presentation of the news surrounding candidates. I was pleased, and wrote to their ombudsman to thank them.

Since the debate it has all reverted to the usual partisan hackery that they’ve long exhibited. Thus, I revert to my earlier charge that the Chronicle would be a far better newspaper if it did not actively despise 1/3 of its readership.

Sigh. When was it any different…?