Oddly enough, the popular media chain announces its dual endorsement on live TV, leaving even left-wing supporters confused.

“Our democratic system is fundamentally broken,” New York Times lamented as they officially announced their decision to have two presidential endorsements, Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren. While the media chain describes the move as “radical” and “game-changing,” it was anything but that.

The announcement was aired last Sunday, during the first episode of FX’s The Weekly, a narrative documentary that focuses on the story behind New York Times headlines. While having endorsements is nothing new for the NYT, the show describes it as an unprecedented move to televise the board’s entire decision-making process.

However, rather than reinforcing a sense of transparency and unbiased opinion, the media chain received a massive backlash, even from the left-winged supporters. This left the Twitter world even more confused.

Some of the left-winged supporters who have expressed their thoughts against the NYT endorsement are the executive director of the far-left Sunrise Movement Varshini Prakash, as well as Left-wing activist Cameron Kasky.

For Abe Greenwald, the Senior Editor of the far-left Commentary Magazine, NYT’s decision compromises the other parties and ideas. “The fear of being definitive, of saying no to one thing and yes to another, is one of the defining pathologies of the age,” Greenwald wrote.

The decision was based on the argument that in the growing tense political sphere, divided parties, and a flood of misinformation, NYT sees the need to push voters to support two different ideas.

NYT believes that after careful consideration, the two women have presented the most detailed policy plans amongst the nine candidates. “Both the radical and realist models warrant serious consideration. If there were ever a time to be open to new ideas, it is now. If there were ever a time to seek stability, now is it,” NYT said in a statement.

And people are quick to point out those diverging ideas. In fact, it had even gotten audiences more confused because, in the end, there could only be one democratic candidate—not two. Unless some sort of miracle happens before the elections.

Even CNN pointed out that “The decision not to endorse a single candidate is what will be remembered here. Because when faced with the two competing visions within the Democratic Party to both beat Trump and lead the country, the Times decided not to choose. Which is, of course, a choice—and not a good one.”

Politics as a Media Circus

However, what had gotten off from most audiences was how NYT turned what is supposed to be objective media into a reality show. By pitting together nine candidates in a roster of interviews, with only not one—but two winners.

Media personalities such as political host Brian Tyler Cohen and Pollster McDermot share the same sentiment.

Ultimately, journalist Sarah Lazare sums this up in her viral tweet that this endorsement is not just about the candidates, but a reflection of the newspaper itself. “The NYT endorsement is a love letter to capitalism and war. The reasons they give—their applauds and scolds-—reveal so much about the liberal reaction to a resurgent left, a reaction that holds Trump as an aberration and polite, well-mannered centrism as the greatest virtue,” Lazare wrote.