Sad State of Journalism

Today, one day before the election, the San Jose Mercury News has a front-page news article about Carly Fiorina.  Apparently, in person at least, she's not "a heartless corporate bigwig who blithely fired her workers and sent their jobs overseas".  The article, somewhat correctly, criticizes Fiorina's campaign strategy.

But in a state as vast as California, only a sliver of voters actually see candidates in person; their main exposure is in TV ads. Fiorina never aired a biographical ad about herself. She did appear in several spots but never gave voters a real sense of herself,

 But, but, but...  isn't the media supposed to do some of this work for us?  Don't they spend time with the candidates?  Why the heck didn't they report this?  Well, the Merc did provide information on their fact check page.  

Boxer also neglects to note that Fiorina's turnaround strategy at HP -- huge acquisitions and relentless cost-cutting -- eventually succeeded in making it the largest technology company in the world. ... her (Fiorina's) broader vision has been largely vindicated by time.

However, they cannot bring themselves to actually endorse her.  Citing, amongst other things, that "Fiorina was fired from HP after a tempestuous tenure" and her support of Prop 23, which is a state issue, not a national one.  They praise Boxer for pushing cap and trade, then admit that "she was ineffective at pushing through her legislation".

O.K., so Fiorina's turnaround strategy at HP "succeeded", her vision was "vindicated", and Boxer was "ineffective".  Why can't they listen to their own facts and recommend Fiorina?  Because she's a Republican.  The Merc endorsed seven democrats and only two republicans, and the republicans for less powerful positions.