(1) might be both common and also wrong. (1) being why I dislike most of these media outlets. (2) the editorial board may be wrong and suffering groupthink, and ultimately slowly killing the paper.

The fact that editorial endorsements are extremely common is relevant because it means that no typical reader would mistake them for being the position of the paper's parent corporation, like GGP suggested. Whether endorsements are right or wrong in the abstract isn't relevant, and I didn't say anything about it.

Could you explain the benefits of having a biased, rather than balanced, editorial department?

No, because that's a straw man. What many people want is a balanced, unbiased editorial department that weighs the facts as they see them and then publishes an endorsement.

Please follow hacker news comment guidelines [1], this isn't reddit. It's a genuine question. If you see it as easily answered (as a straw man would be), then answer it easily.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#:~:text=Don....

1. I answered you - nobody said they see a benefit to having biased editors, and no reasonable person would, by definition. People see benefit in something else, as I explained - that's the answer to your question.

2. I know some people say "straw man" as a swipe, but it's also a term of art for a rhetorical fallacy and that's how I meant it. The position you asked me to defend (that there's benefit in having a biased editorial board) isn't a position anyone here took, or agrees with. Hence the term.

3. "this isn't reddit" is a swipe - and one that's a bit mysterious to people who are unfamiliar with reddit, like me ;)