Content deleted Content added
m Reverted edits by 2600:4040:A4E2:D600:E158:98A9:F2F2:A4DE (talk) to last version by Srich32977 |
HeyElliott (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 118:
On business holidays or days when bonus sections are included in the issue, the Money and Life sections are usually combined into one section, while combinations of the Friday Life editions into one section are common during quiet weeks. Advertising is often covered in the Monday Money section, with a review of a recent television ad, and after [[Super Bowl Sunday]], a review of the ads aired during the broadcast with the results of the ''Ad Track'' live survey. Stock tables for individual stock exchanges (comprising one subsection for companies traded on the [[New York Stock Exchange]], and another for companies trading on [[NASDAQ]] and the [[American Stock Exchange]]) and [[Mutual fund|mutual indexes]] were discontinued with the 2012 redesign due to the myriad electronic ways to check individual stock prices, in line with most newspapers.
Book coverage, including reviews and a national sales chart which debuted on October 28, 1994, is seen on Thursdays in Life, with the full [[Nielsen ratings|A.C. Nielsen
[[File:USA Today building.jpg|thumb|left|''USA Today'' is headquartered in [[Tysons Corner, Virginia]]<!-- Despite the McLean, VA address, the HQ is in Tysons Corner -->.]]
Line 136:
Beginning with the [[1984 United States presidential election]]'', USA Today'' did not endorse candidates for the [[President of the United States]] or any other state or federal political office, a policy which has been re-evaluated during each four-year election cycle by the paper's Board of Contributors through an independent process, with any decision to override the policy based on a consensus vote in which fewer than two of the editorial board's members dissent or hold differing opinions.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/29/donald-trump-editorial-board-al-neuharth-editorials-debates/91294382/ | title=Why we're breaking tradition: Our view | newspaper=USA Today | publisher=[[Gannett]] | date=September 29, 2016}}</ref> For most of its history, the paper's political editorials (most of them linked to the Presidential election cycle) had focused instead on major issues based on the differing concerns of voters, the vast array of information on these themes, and the board's aim to offer a fair viewpoint through the diverse political ideologies of its members and avoid reader perceptions of bias.
The avoidance of political editorials played a great part in ''USA Today''{{'s}} long-standing reputation for "fluff", but after its 30th anniversary revamp, the paper took a more active stance on political issues, calling for stronger gun laws after the [[Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting]] in 2012. It heavily criticized the [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] for both the [[2013 government shutdown]] and the 2015 revolts in the [[United States House of Representatives]] that ended with the resignation of [[John Boehner]] as House Speaker. It also called out then-[[President of the United States|President]] [[Barack Obama]] and other top members of the [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democratic Party]] for what it perceived as "inaction" during 2013–14, particularly over the
The editorial board broke from its "non-endorsement" policy for the first time on September 29, 2016, when it published an op-ed piece condemning the candidacy of [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] nominee [[Donald Trump]], calling him "unfit for the presidency" due to his inflammatory campaign rhetoric (particularly that aimed at the press, with certain media organizations being openly targeted and even banned from campaign rallies, including ''[[The New York Times]]'', ''[[The Washington Post]]'', [[CNN]] and the [[BBC]], military veterans who had been prisoners of war, including 2008 Republican presidential candidate and Vietnam War veteran [[John McCain]], immigrants, and various ethnic and religious groups); his temperament and lack of financial transparency; his "checkered" business record; his use of false and hyperbolic statements; the inconsistency of his viewpoints and issues with his vision on domestic and foreign policy; and, based on comments he had made during his campaign and criticisms by both [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrats]] and Republicans on these views, the potential risks to national security and constitutional ethics under a Trump administration, asking voters to "resist the siren song of a dangerous demagogue".<ref>{{cite news | title=USA Today's Editorial Board: Trump is 'unfit for the presidency' | url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/29/dont-vote-for-donald-trump-editorial-board-editorials-debates/91295020/ | newspaper=USA Today | publisher=[[Gannett]] | date=September 29, 2016}}</ref> The board wrote that the piece was not a "qualified endorsement" of Democratic nominee [[Hillary Clinton]], for whom it was unable to reach a consensus (some editorial board members expressed that Clinton's public service record would help her "serve the nation ably as its president", while others had "serious reservations about [her] sense of entitlement, [...] lack of candor and [...] [[Hillary Clinton email controversy|extreme carelessness in handling classified information]]"), suggesting instead [[tactical voting]] against Trump and GOP seats in swing states, advising voters to decide whether to vote for either Clinton, [[Libertarian Party (United States)|Libertarian]] nominee [[Gary Johnson]], [[Green Party of the United States|Green Party]] nominee [[Jill Stein]] or a write-in candidate for president; or to focus on Senate, House and other down-ballot political races.<ref>{{cite news | title=USA Today maroons readers with un-endorsement of Donald Trump | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/09/30/usa-today-maroons-readers-with-un-endorsement-of-donald-trump/| first=Erik | last=Wemple | newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |date=September 30, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | title=USA Today breaks non-endorsement tradition | url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/usa-today-breaks-non-endorsement-tradition-calls-donald-trump-unfit-for-the-presidency/ | first=Emily | last=Schultheis | work=[[CBS News]] | date=September 29, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite news | title='Don't vote for Trump,' says USA Today in first presidential endorsement in its history | url=https://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-live-updates-trailguide-09292016-htmlstory.html#dont-vote-for-trump-says-usa-today-in-first-presidential-endorsement-in-its-history | first=Melanie | last=Mason | work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=September 29, 2016 | url-access=subscription }}</ref>
| |||