||| MIDNIGHT MUTTERINGS by JACKIE BATES |||
When Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post in 2013, he reportedly said he would not interfere with the editorial aspects of the paper, and for the next eleven years, he seems to have followed his plan. However, just days before the 2024 election, he put a stop to the plan by the editorial board of the Washington Post’s plan to endorse Kamala Harris for President of the United States.
Bezos’ interference caused quite a kerfuffle, as the Post editorial board had already made a decision and a plan to announce the endorsement of Kamala Harris. Three board members and several journalists resigned in protest, followed by more than 250,000 readers cancelling subscriptions.
Here is a statement put out by some of the journalists: ‘The Washington Post’s decision not to make an endorsement in the presidential campaign is a terrible mistake,’ they wrote. ‘It represents an abandonment of the fundamental editorial convictions of the newspaper that we love.’
Other critics include Watergate reporter legends Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward who protested, as well as nearly two dozen Post columnists who signed a separate public, critical statement. Over two hundred fifty thousand readers have cancelled their subscriptions. Some suggest that readers who cancel their subscriptions are hurting journalists more than Bezos.
These are perilous times politically and personally, and like Bezos, I am changing my mind. Having stated earlier that I wouldn’t bore you with my political rantings, I now realize I can’t contain myself. I find it difficult / impossible to understand how a person or organization would prefer a convicted felon and sexual abuser, who bragged about kissing and groping women without permission because he’s a ‘star,’ and says he plans to be a dictator on day one when he is re-elected, but can’t even stay awake during his own trial.
Vanity Fair reported on Halloween that ‘In a striking escalation of his violent rhetoric against political opponents and other critics, Donald Trump called former representative Liz Cheney a “radical war hawk” and a “moron” who should have guns “trained on her face.” “Let’s put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels shooting at her, OK?” Trump said at an Arizona campaign event.
Even more compelling, it seems the majority of people who worked with the former President during his previous term in office, including three military generals, consider him ‘dangerous.’ Even more dangerous, in a second term, when he says he will only have ‘loyal staffers’ in his administration. This is the person who claimed ‘he did not know’ the woman who had accused him of rape for which he was on trial. When shown a photo of them together, he thought it was a photo of his second wife. Now he calls his political opponent a ‘shit vice president’ and that he will ‘protect women,’ even women ‘who don’t want me to protect them.‘ Hmmm… Some women must see his offer of ‘protection’ as a threat.
Oh that’s right, you don’t need my tirade. I should save it for the member of my own family, a former pilot in the Air Force, who seems not to have heard what this candidate has said about people in the military who have been injured or killed, even one who is the son of a general who was Trump’s longest lasting chief of staff.
In a few days the election will be over, and some time after we will learn the results. After that we will learn the repercussions if the next elected president is not the one who has agreed that he will accept the results of the election only if it is a ‘fair election.’ Apparently, in his definition, the only ‘fair’ election is the one he wins. Have ‘We the People’ not learned anything?
One last note: I have explained all of this to Rose and Molly: ’We the Cats,’ and they agree with me, at least on this subject. They assured me that ‘if cats could vote, the country would be a lot safer for childless cat ladies.’ They also inquired about the timing of their dinner.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Good for Jeff Bezos, and good for the American people as far as I’m concerned. Newspapers are supposed to report the news… not create it. I could care less what Jeff Bezos, et al, think, and can easily live with more factual reporting and less influence pedaling from the billionaire class who shouldn’t be using their clout to interfere in U.S. or foreign elections in the first place.
So 250,000 people dropped their subscriptions because Jeff Bezos didn’t endorse their candidate of choice? Have Americans become so inured to newspapers being used as political tools during elections, and employing every deceptive trick in the playbook in an effort to sway public opinion, that we can’t think for ourselves? IMO it’s nothing short of election interference… think for yourself people.
I second “Good for Jeff Bezos”. Newspapers should report the facts, not tell us who to vote for.
3RD
Comment is too short. Please use at least 60 characters.
Hey MJ,
I hear you, but…in the interest of intellectual fairness I am going to argue from a different POV.
Newspapers have a tradition of “Editorial” commentary. Learning to track the editorial slant of a newspaper is a critical thinking skill I was taught as a young ‘un by an English teacher who got blacklisted as a young actress in the McCarthy era. I believe it is imperative to understand that everyone has a lens, and you must calibrate your own information processing accordingly.
Robert Parker, a famous wine critic, loved big, fruity, oaky reds with plenty of ripe chewy tannins. I like silky, aromatic reds, and often disagreed with his scoring. However, his reviews were an excellent resource for me as a wine professional because the basic facts offered (vintage, technique, appellation) were reliable, and he was consistent enough in his preferences that I could tell whether a mediocre score meant a wine was poor quality, or was well made and likely to please someone with a different palate. In the same way, though my own political priorities and interests are not those of an investment professional or a multinational corporation, I read Reuters. Very useful information can be gained from knowing who is paying attention to what. I think once you understand the audience and editorial agenda of a particular news outlet, it can then be extremely helpful to know whether they endorse particular candidates. After all, the staff is paid to spend their days studying past records and contextualizing the people who hold and seek power.
My first year college journalism class many decades ago made it clear that newspapers had both news and editorial sections. Editorials were for opinions, not news, nor do they tell anyone who they have to vote for … what editorial boards do is offer their collective recommendation in the case of elections.
Decades later, that same division between news and editorials hasn’t changed.
Bezos has two objectives by his veto of the Washington Post’s editorial board recommendation. First, don’t politically alienate either party in what is reportedly going to be a very close election. That’s pretty much a fail, at least temporarily, with the subscription cancellations and staff departures.
But Bezos, and other billionaire owners of major newspapers, are going to pay higher taxes if Harris prevails Tuesday. The top 25 billionaires in the United States currently pay an average of about 3.4% of their income in federal taxes. That’s a lot of money, but it’s just a fraction of the percentage most people pay. When a U.S. citizen is uber wealthy, they have the financial resources to hire tax and legal experts to navigate the multiple tax laws that favor tax avoidance.
Bezos is likely looking after his own personal wealth with his decision to not follow the editorial board’s recommendation of Harris for President.
Same story in Los Angeles.
It’s a bit naive to claim or expect that any media platform (including this one) could ever serve as a source of totally neutral and unbiased reportage. There is simply too much to report, with too much detail, and too many perspectives on matters of a subjective nature. Some may go so far as to argue that everything we experience is subjective and that objectivity is not even possible.
In this case it’s quite simple: one of the world’s wealthiest men is trying to protect his pampered and posh lifestyle from what he may perceive as excessive regulation (should Harris win) or political revenge (should the other candidate win). No need for further analysis.
I could understand an editorial, perhaps two — one from each side — being published in a newspaper like WaPo at election time. But when the entire organization, implying all the people at that organization agree, supports (and thus promotes) one candidate over another, we’ve moved from editorial into propaganda. Imagine being a conservative or independent reporter at the Washington Post in the face of an announcement like that (and more so after the slew of resignations); will those reporters feel like they can speak up about anything that doesn’t align with full throated support of one candidate over another?
Yes, it is naive to expect any media platform to be completely neutral and unbiased. But they should at least *try*. Having the entire news organization endorsing a candidate is a total failure of effort in that regard. Even if Bezos shut it down because he simply wants to get richer, I am glad he did what he did.
This platform allows editorials from people all over the political spectrum, as well as from those of us who are apolitical/independent. I appreciate that, and that the Orcasonian doesn’t (at least not to my knowledge) openly endorse specific candidates or a specific political party.
I can’t help but feel I’m seeing what looks to be a recurring theme in this thread. We all seem to be in agreement that most, if not all media sources have a political bias, that this is traditional, that in our society it has become the norm, (so much so that as David stated, one “would be naive to host expectations that any media platform could ever serve as a source of totally neutral and unbiased reportage,”) and that we as citizens are solely responsible for having the needed critical thinking skills that would enable us to not fall into the pitfalls being offered by media disinformation and outright fake news.
Though I cannot disagree with any of this… I’m led to ask, “what’s wrong with this picture?” Does it not come to your attention that this is dysfunctional? That it serves only the best interests of the 1%. 15 billionaires and 6 corporations own America’s news media companies. Mainstream news staff are full of ex-military advisors, former state Dept. officials, and embedded reporters who tow the line are now the norm in conflict zones around the world.
We’re currently governed by a dominant two-party system with unlimited campaign financing, and an undue amount of both foreign and domestic election interference. This being a system that no longer serves the best interests of the people with the common descriptor being that we are voting for the lesser of evils. Consolidated media ownership adds to the problem by leading with a narrow framing, misleading narratives, and a self-serving agenda that puts political and economic interests over human interests. Just because it’s a tradition doesn’t make it right.
The status quo byline stating that “the country is divided” is no longer accurate. It’s no longer true that half the country thinks this way, and the other half thinks that way. There’s currently a groundswell of growing support for the progressive movement in both congress as well as in the streets, a movement that represents something more, something better. True democracy cannot and will not be achieved until we break the dysfunctional two party system with the emergence of a third party.
To those who say that what I’m describing can only happen in a perfect world, I challenge this and say, “that in a world where honesty and accountability is supposed to mean something… the people deserve better.”
Those who choose the lesser evil forget very quickly that they chose evil.” — Hannah Arendt
Sure looked like a quid pro quo though and “selling” the Post’s lack of endorsement for future favors re: rocket contracts trying to compete with Trump darling Elon is really not what the owner of a respected media outlet ought to appear to be doing. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/what-jeff-bezos-stands-to-gain-on-washington-posts-losses.html