Kirk writes, “We no longer see value, however, in drawing a conclusion on behalf of our readers about who best should lead the city and the state from City Hall, from the Governor’s Mansion or from the halls of the U.S. Senate.
“Another factor in our thinking is the hyper-partisan era in which we now do our work. At this point in, say, the governor’s race, we are fairly confident most of our readers have already made up their minds. In fact, early voting has already begun. An endorsement, in that context, can do one of two things: either affirm for readers that their previously formed preference is correct, or give those who disagree a reason to think our coverage of the campaign and, unfortunately, everything else, is biased in favor of the endorsed candidate.
“Crain’s reporting is and always will be independent and rigorous. But at a time when trust in the media generally is at a low point, we’re cognizant that anything we do that erodes that trust further is a mistake. And given the plethora of political information that’s readily available now, continuing an endorsement tradition rooted in the days when such information was scarce is unnecessary.”
Read more here.
CNBC senior vice president Dan Colarusso sent out the following on Monday: Before this year comes to…
Business Insider editor in chief Jamie Heller sent out the following on Monday: I'm excited to share…
Former CoinDesk editorial staffer Michael McSweeney writes about the recent happenings at the cryptocurrency news site, where…
Manas Pratap Singh, finance editor for LinkedIn News Europe, has left for a new opportunity…
Washington Post executive editor Matt Murray sent out the following on Friday: Dear All, Over the last…
The Financial Times has hired Barbara Moens to cover competition and tech in Brussels. She will start…