this year<u+2019>s presidential campaign has caused journalists to lose all perspective, we keep thinking, and they keep proving us wrong by losing even more perspective. the latest example is a breathless wednesday-afternoon tweet from dylan byers , who covers the media for cnn: <u+201c>just got off the phone with @jeffreygoldberg, who drafted the atlantic<u+2019>s historic endorsement of hillary clinton. full story tk...<u+201d> <u+201c>tk<u+201d> is journalese for <u+201c>to come,<u+201d> and the story kame as promised a few minutes later, with <u+201c>historic<u+201d> in the headline: so the editorial is <u+201c>historic<u+201d> only in the sense that the magazine has been around for a long time. (a headline last year from scientific american read <u+201c>atlantic circulation weakens compared with last thousand years.<u+201d>) <u+201c>unusual<u+201d> would be a more apt description. as byers notes, the atlantic has endorsed only two presidential candidates before: lincoln in 1860 and lyndon johnson 104 years later. as this year<u+2019>s editorial notes, the one in 1964 <u+201c>was focused less on his positive attributes than on the flaws of his opponent, barry goldwater.<u+201d> follow james on twitter curiously, this year<u+2019>s editorial cites no second thoughts about 1964<u+2019>s, even though lbj<u+2019>s presidency was anything but an unqualified success and goldwater went on to become an elder statesman respected across party lines. but we suppose such reconsideration would raise the possibility that the magazine is mistaken in declaring that trump <u+201c>might be the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the american presidency.<u+201d> to anyone who reads the atlantic<u+2014>this columnist often looks at it online<u+2014>the magazine<u+2019>s position is a classic dog-bites-man story. we<u+2019>ve read more or less the same anti-trump claims under goldberg<u+2019>s byline and the bylines of many of his colleagues. the only thing pro-trump we recall reading in the atlantic is a long letter from a supporter to conor friedersdorf, which we discussed in a june column . yet the editorial<u+2019>s praise for mrs. clinton is faint: the same is true of many of the newspaper endorsements of mrs. clinton. the hill reports that not one of the top 100 u.s. newspapers by circulation has yet endorsed trump. a few<u+2014>the dallas morning news , cincinnati enquirer and arizona republic <u+2014>have endorsed mrs. clinton after backing republicans for many decades. these papers are even more unenthusiastic about mrs. clinton than the atlantic. some of their editorials contain passages that could have appeared in a trump endorsement. from the enquirer: does any of this matter? poynter reports the morning news has lost subscribers over its endorsement of mrs. clinton: there<u+2019>s a bit of a contradiction between the piety that everyone should vote and the view that trump is a threat to civilization: if the latter is true, wouldn<u+2019>t it be better if his supporters stayed home? jim rutenberg , the new york times<u+2019>s media columnist<u+2014>who argued in august that trump is such a menace that news reporters should refuse to cover him fairly<u+2014>tries and fails to quantify <u+201c>how many minds it all changes<u+201d>: but the editorials needn<u+2019>t change minds to have an influence. suppose you<u+2019>re an undecided voter who finds trump appealing in some ways but scary in others. perhaps an editorial that reinforces your misgivings will help nudge you from trump-curious to anti-trump. even though the big-newspaper endorsements so far are unanimously against trump, not all are for mrs. clinton. the richmond times-dispatch , detroit news and chicago tribune urge readers to cast a protest vote for libertarian gary johnson. (the richmond and detroit papers usually endorse republicans, but the tribune backed barack obama twice.) then there<u+2019>s usa today , which customarily does not endorse candidates. last week it issued its first ever anti-endorsement<u+2014>disdorsement?<u+2014>titled (in the print edition) <u+201c>don<u+2019>t vote for trump<u+201d>: this week usa today ran an op-ed by richard benedetto , a retired correspondent who was with the paper at its 1982 founding. <u+201c>i view the board<u+2019>s decision to take a stand in the 2016 presidential race as a rejection of the bedrock principles upon which the late gannett chairman and ceo al neuharth created usa today,<u+201d> benedetto writes: strictly speaking, though, usa today<u+2019>s editors aren<u+2019>t telling readers how to vote, only how not to vote. moreover, the <u+201c>opposing view<u+201d> last friday was a pro-trump op-ed from running mate mike pence . so the paper published arguments both for and against trump. the only thing missing was a case for mrs. clinton. two studies in one! we blame george w. bush <u+201c>it<u+2019>s official: a time-honored political dark art has gone flamboyantly public. who<u+2019>s to blame? start with cable news.<u+201d><u+2014>subheadline, politico.com, oct.<u+00a0>5 another broken promise hypothesis and proof generalissimo francisco franco is still dead <u+201c>newly discovered video of obama: <u+2018>saddened whites are still superior<u+2019><u+00a0><u+201d><u+2014>headline, daily caller, oct.<u+00a0>4 make that 4 hey, kids! what time is it? <u+201c>election update: maybe it<u+2019>s time for ohio and pennsylvania to part ways<u+201d><u+2014>headline, fivethirtyeight, oct.<u+00a0>5 question and answer<u+2014>i question and answer<u+2014>ii breaking news from 1912 <u+201c>young bull moose visits downtown bismarck and state capitol<u+201d><u+2014>headline, associated press, oct.<u+00a0>5 bottom story of the day <u+201c>huffington post [sic] runs the worst article of all time, internet responds accordingly<u+201d><u+2014>headline, daily caller, oct.<u+00a0>5 <u+2018>some singer dude<u+2019> at the weekly standard, elliott abrams notes a recently released email exchange from hillary clinton<u+2019>s state department: we<u+2019>ve heard of dave brubeck, and <u+201c>wjc<u+201d> is presumably william jefferson (bill) clinton. but what kind of music does the doug band play? follow @jamestaranto on twitter. join fans of best of the web today on facebook. subscribe to the best of the web email with one click. (carol muller helps compile best of the web. thanks to jackie harty, irene deblasio, michele schiesser, mike lavender, steve thompson, chris papouras, david hallstrom, wes van fleet, john moran, tony lima, james benenson, miguel rakiewicz, bill frazer, scott wancier, debbie wells, eric jensen, mordecai bobrowsky and norman blanton. if you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com , and please include the url.)
dog bites trump - wsj
james taranto