Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Democracy's Death in Darkness
THE MEDIA
Democracy’s Death in Darkness
The Washington Post’s endorsement for president might not matter. But the message the paper just sent sure does.
BY JUSTIN PETERS
OCT 26, 2024 • 5:55 AM
Amazon founder and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos conducts a “digital ribbon cutting” during the opening ceremony of the newspaper’s new location Jan. 28, 2016 in Washington, D.C. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
On Friday afternoon, the New York Times and other outlets reported that, for the first time in almost 50 years, the Washington Post would not be endorsing a candidate in the 2024 presidential election—and would refrain from endorsing candidates in all future presidential elections, too. In a note to staffers, the newspaper’s beleaguered publisher, Will Lewis, implied that the decision was made for reasons of editorial independence, and characterized it as “consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects.” Others interpreted the decision rather differently: “This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty,” former Post editor Marty Baron wrote on X.
The Post’s move came days after the news broke that Patrick Soon-Shiong, the owner of the Los Angeles Times, had prevented the paper from endorsing a presidential candidate this year. In a letter to Soon-Shiong that was reprinted by the Columbia Journalism Review, Mariel Garza, who resigned as the newspaper’s editorials editor on Wednesday, argued that the “non-endorsement undermines the integrity of the editorial board and every single endorsement we make, down to school board races. People will justifiably wonder if each endorsement was a decision made by a group of journalists after extensive research and discussion, or through decree by the owner.” In a post on X, Soon-Shiong defended his decision and said that the editorial board “was provided the opportunity to draft a factual analysis of all the POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies by EACH candidate during their tenures at the White House, and how these policies affected the nation…. Instead of adopting this path as suggested, the Editorial Board chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision.” (“Makes sense,” Elon Musk posted in response.)
And I suppose these twinned non-endorsements did make sense, if you’ve been tracking the trajectory of these two newspapers—and the news business in general—over the past few years. Not to make a long story perhaps unfairly short, but I think it’s notable that both the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times are newspapers that were “saved” years ago by very rich guys who these days seem mostly frustrated that they have not been able to make those newspapers earn their respective keeps.
Soon-Shiong, a biotech billionaire, did Los Angeles and the nation a huge favor by purchasing the Times from the publishing company then known as “Tronc” in 2018; since 2023, though, the Times has shed roughly a third of its newsroom in multiple rounds of layoffs, moves Soon-Shiong justified by noting that the paper could no longer afford to lose as much as $40 million per year. The Washington Post, of course, has been owned since 2013 by Jeff Bezos, whose $205.6 billion fortune, according to Forbes’ Real-Time Billionaires List, currently makes him the third-richest man in the world. But all that money has not stopped Bezos from signing off on layoffs and buyouts at the Post, kvetching about the newspaper’s current inability to turn a profit, and installing Lewis, an apparent twit, as its publisher.
{snip}
Democracy’s Death in Darkness
The Washington Post’s endorsement for president might not matter. But the message the paper just sent sure does.
BY JUSTIN PETERS
OCT 26, 2024 • 5:55 AM
Amazon founder and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos conducts a “digital ribbon cutting” during the opening ceremony of the newspaper’s new location Jan. 28, 2016 in Washington, D.C. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
On Friday afternoon, the New York Times and other outlets reported that, for the first time in almost 50 years, the Washington Post would not be endorsing a candidate in the 2024 presidential election—and would refrain from endorsing candidates in all future presidential elections, too. In a note to staffers, the newspaper’s beleaguered publisher, Will Lewis, implied that the decision was made for reasons of editorial independence, and characterized it as “consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects.” Others interpreted the decision rather differently: “This is cowardice, with democracy as its casualty,” former Post editor Marty Baron wrote on X.
The Post’s move came days after the news broke that Patrick Soon-Shiong, the owner of the Los Angeles Times, had prevented the paper from endorsing a presidential candidate this year. In a letter to Soon-Shiong that was reprinted by the Columbia Journalism Review, Mariel Garza, who resigned as the newspaper’s editorials editor on Wednesday, argued that the “non-endorsement undermines the integrity of the editorial board and every single endorsement we make, down to school board races. People will justifiably wonder if each endorsement was a decision made by a group of journalists after extensive research and discussion, or through decree by the owner.” In a post on X, Soon-Shiong defended his decision and said that the editorial board “was provided the opportunity to draft a factual analysis of all the POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies by EACH candidate during their tenures at the White House, and how these policies affected the nation…. Instead of adopting this path as suggested, the Editorial Board chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision.” (“Makes sense,” Elon Musk posted in response.)
And I suppose these twinned non-endorsements did make sense, if you’ve been tracking the trajectory of these two newspapers—and the news business in general—over the past few years. Not to make a long story perhaps unfairly short, but I think it’s notable that both the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times are newspapers that were “saved” years ago by very rich guys who these days seem mostly frustrated that they have not been able to make those newspapers earn their respective keeps.
Soon-Shiong, a biotech billionaire, did Los Angeles and the nation a huge favor by purchasing the Times from the publishing company then known as “Tronc” in 2018; since 2023, though, the Times has shed roughly a third of its newsroom in multiple rounds of layoffs, moves Soon-Shiong justified by noting that the paper could no longer afford to lose as much as $40 million per year. The Washington Post, of course, has been owned since 2013 by Jeff Bezos, whose $205.6 billion fortune, according to Forbes’ Real-Time Billionaires List, currently makes him the third-richest man in the world. But all that money has not stopped Bezos from signing off on layoffs and buyouts at the Post, kvetching about the newspaper’s current inability to turn a profit, and installing Lewis, an apparent twit, as its publisher.
{snip}