The news that neither the Washington Post nor the Los Angeles Times will endorse Kamala Harris for president has shaken the media world and shows clearly the risks of billionaires owning major newspapers — especially during this crucial, nation-defining moment.
According to KQED
Both newspapers’ editorial boards, which operate independently of the newsrooms, had reportedly drafted endorsements of Vice President Kamala Harris. But the decisions to not endorse ahead of a neck-and-neck race between Harris and former President Donald Trump were influenced by the outlets’ billionaire owners, whose other businesses have lucrative contracts with the government.
Media experts are opining that Post owner Jeff Bezos and Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong engaged in preemptive self-censoring before a potential second Trump presidency. Society of Professional Journalists ethics leaders Monday condemned the owners’ actions, saying in a statement they worry it “marks the beginning, and not the end, of such interference.”
NPR reports more than 200,000 people had canceled their digital subscriptions to the Washington Post by midday Monday, Oct. 28, representing about 8% of the outlet’s paid subscriber base. Resignations in protest have followed as well, both there and at the Times.
According to the Associated Press:
Two more members of the Los Angeles Times editorial board have resigned after the newspaper’s owner blocked the board’s plan to endorse Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris for president. Veteran journalists Robert Greene and Karin Klein announced their resignations Thursday, a day after the editorial page editor Mariel Garza left in protest over LA Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong’s decision not to endorse a candidate.
Greene, a Pulitzer Prize winner for editorial writing, said in a statement shared with the Columbia Journalism Review that he was “deeply disappointed” in the decision not to endorse Harris.
“I recognize that it is the owner’s decision to make,” he wrote. “But it hurt particularly because one of the candidates, Donald Trump, has demonstrated such hostility to principles that are central to journalism — respect for the truth and reverence for democracy.”
For the Post, the decision is certain to generate debate beyond the news cycle. It seemed to acknowledge this with a note from the paper’s letters and community editor at the top of the comments section on the publisher’s column: “I know many of you will have strong feelings about this note from Mr. Lewis.”
Indeed, by midafternoon, the column had elicited more than 7,000 comments, many critical. Said one, riffing off the Post’s slogan, “Democracy Dies in Darkness”: “Time to change your slogan to `Democracy dies in broad daylight.’”
An earlier version of this post had a double negative which expressed the opposite of the writer’s intent, and was removed.
I have to admit that I have mixed feelings about the fact that both the LA times and the Washington post opted not to endorse anyone for President of the United States. Frankly, I think both Newspaper owners showed their yellow bellies and lack of intestinal fortitude for not doing so. However, I also believe that a person ought to Make up their own minds as to whom they are voting for. Personally, I have NEVER voted for, or against, any candidate based off of what some newspaper editorial suggested. If, however, you are not in the practice of following politics, perhaps you require an endorsement to influence your vote. Oh well, in about a week Democracy may go the way of the Dodo bird anyway.
Billionaire newspaper owners get to do whatever they feel like doing, especially if they are looking to secure their broad investments for a trumpy future.
It was ever thus, actually, even in the era when newspapers thrived with paid advertising. No one has ever really cared about newspaper political endorsements, except for candidates and their publicists.
Do I give Bezos and Soon-Shiong a pass? No, this is another reminder that Bernie Sanders is right about U.S. oligarchs calling the shots. And anyone who cancels their subscription because of this late unilateral decision is doing more harm than good: it just hastens the day when a newspaper like the LA Times folds for good.
Just resubscribe — do it for the reporting, and you will probably get a discount.