All errors should be reported to

Wednesday, December 14, 2016

Unethical newspaper endorses unethical politicians

The Philadelphia Daily News admitted it is a co-conspirator of Democratic Congressman Chaka Fattah of Pennsylvania who will serve 10 years in prison for racketeering conspiracy, bribery, bank fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, making false statements to a financial institution, and falsification of records.

Just kidding. Sandra Shea, the newspaper's editorial page editor, blamed others for her newspaper's endorsement of this crook as well as four other crooked Pennsylvania politicians.

From Sandra Shea:
Sure enough, when Fattah’s sentence was announced, the commentariat declared that both news outlets should be hanging our heads in shame because, after all, we endorsed him! I can’t tell how how many times this response – Your fault! You endorsed him/her! — dominates the comments sections of stories detailing the latest lawmaker to be indicted or sentenced on corruption charges.
Actually, that’s not true, I can tell you: Every. Single. Time. Kathleen Kane? Our fault. LeAnna Washington? Our fault. Vince Fumo? John Perzel? Yup, we did it. We endorsed these criminals, so that must make us practically co-conspirators. Right? Well, not exactly.
The "commentariat" she referred to is people who leave comments that its editors don't like.

A little self-awareness would make her realize that she is a member of that commentariat.

But here is her excuse:
We believe that even if the choices aren't great, it's our responsibility to make an endorsement anyway. To make no endorsement is to say “don’t vote for either,” which is too close to saying “don’t vote.” And we would never suggest that not voting is an option.
Sometimes candidates challenging an incumbent are smart and promising, and sometimes they're not. But we always give these earnest candidates a full hearing, because they represent democracy in action. Here’s an ugly truth, though: Too often, people running for office aren’t serious contenders. Some don’t show up for endorsement meetings, or don’t respond to phone calls. Others that do show are clearly unqualified, or seem to have no clue about the function of the office they’re running for.
That is in error both intellectually and factually.

Intellectually, not voting is a viable choice. People do that all the time. I do. I skipped offices on the primary ballot this year because in a few races, I knew nothing about the candidates.

Factually, she is wrong. David Freed who ran against Democrat Kathleen Kane for Pennsylvania attorney general in 2012 was well-qualified as the District Attorney of Cumberland County,

His opponent -- Kane - had never run for office before. The newspaper and Shea owe Freed an apology.

I will tell you why the Philadelphia Daily News endorsed these crooks.

Power and prestige.

Four of the crooks were Democrats. The lone Republican was the state Speaker of the House. Newspaper publishers often need favors done. Politicians help those who help the politicians first.

As for Kane, she was a liberal and a woman, the perfect candidate for a liberal (once conservative) newspaper.

So yes, the Philadelphia Daily News is responsible for these crooks. Sandra Shea and the newspaper's editorial board vouched for them.

The newspaper openly worked to elect them. And let me tell you, news reports slant in favor of the endorsed.

I can see getting fooled once or twice.

But five times?

No one should trust this newspaper.

No one.

Or Shea.

For the ethical and moral standards of Shea and her newspaper are just as low as the standards of Fattah, Kane, Washington, Fumo, or Perzel.


Please read "Trump the Press," in which I skewer media experts who wrongly predicted Trump would lose the Republican nomination. "Trump the Press" is available as a paperback, and on Kindle.

For an autographed copy, email me at 

Follow me on Twitter.


  1. Even when writing about the conviction of four Democrats for public corruption, the only use of the word "Democrat" in the article was immediately followed by "and Republican". Alex, I'll take "Name that Party" for $100!

  2. They all deserve to die.

    The newspapers, of course.

  3. Yep, they're part of the problem, and not of the solution.

  4. When one road leads to perdition, and the other road leads to damnation, it's time to cut through the woods, Sandra.

  5. In a town as big as Philly, a GOOD newspaper would surely be able to find someone else to praise in print who is capable and whom the paper could argue the political parties ought to have nominated for office in place of the unacceptable candidates the parties chose to run. There is no excuse for a paper endorsing the allegedly lesser evil of two poor candidates, neither of whom the editors find unacceptable.

  6. What's amazing is the utter lack of remorse.

    No "Sorry, folks, we screwed up those endorsements and we are just as angry about it as you are."

    No "We promise to try harder and do better."

    Instead, it's just utterly disingenuous bullcrap, and self-aggrandizing to boot.

    Sandra Shea is the poster child for liberal media arrogance.

  7. This is just a typical liberal press knee-jerk endorsement of whichever democrat is running for whichever office. They all do it. - Elric

  8. The Daily Dirt, as we always called it, has always been the lowest of the low.

  9. Don, the reasoning is even worse than you describe. Explicitly endorsing a none-of-the-above option can undermine a crooked politician's defenses against the justice system. Had Fattah, for example, not been winning his district with 90% of the vote, he might have not run his corrupt enterprise for quite as long. Just him winning, let's say 55-45 might have brought him down long ago.