Jeff Bezos kills Washington Post editorial board presidential endorsement
43 comments
·October 25, 2024dragonwriter
themgt
The daughter of the LA Times owner wrote: "There is a lot of controversy and confusion over the LAT’s decision not to endorse a presidential candidate. I trust the Editorial Board’s judgment. For me, genocide is the line in the sand."
Molitor5901
To play Devils Advocate for a moment: Why do we need, or even want, a newspaper to endorse a President? How does it not undermine a paper's journalistic ethics to be neutral and fair?
coldpie
I actually agree with you, newspapers really shouldn't be doing this. Our major local paper in the Twin Cities basically torched its reputation by endorsing wildly unqualified candidates for city offices (like, one guy they endorsed for Minneapolis city council didn't even live in Minneapolis). They recently decided to stop doing endorsements at all, which I think is the right decision.
But that's not what happened here. The editors did their normal endorsement process, but the owner of the paper stepped in and personally overrode their process for this one particular endorsement. That's a way different story from deciding to stop doing endorsements.
Molitor5901
Another point that just occurred to me: Who is the endorsement supposed to influence? I think in America at least, the national media has become so hyper partisan in the eyes of its readers, that an endorsement of a newspaper is really just preaching to the crowd. What difference does that endorsement really make?
At the national level, I don't think it really makes a difference if a newspaper endorses a candidate for President. Those who read and value the opinions of that newspaper are more inclined to vote for the endorsed candidate anyways.
bitshiftfaced
As they state in the opinion piece, Washington Post actually has a long history of not endorsing political candidates. You can also frame this as the owner stepping in to undo how the editors have been overriding their policy.
drewbug01
“Had”, not “has”, a long history of not endorsing candidates. They’ve been endorsing since the 80s.
The proper framing is “the owners stepped in to change the policy, to mirror the same policies they had before the 80s”.
Whether that’s right or wrong to do is a separate question. But framing this as though it has been editors going rogue or something is just not what’s happening at all.
Molitor5901
I saw that but I'm not sure I see the "long history". From Eisenhower to Carter, then from Carter to now, that's not much of a long history of non-endorsement. The Post is taking a very strong stance here and it will be interesting to see if this stands up in 2028. The LA Times may have left the door open to future endorsements, but not the Post.
Better question: Why now? What changed for them? Was it declining revenue/readers, an overhaul of ethics or process? I can't wait to read the tell all some day about these decisions.
TMWNN
>But that's not what happened here. The editors did their normal endorsement process, but the owner of the paper stepped in and personally overrode their process for this one particular endorsement. That's a way different story from deciding to stop doing endorsements.
But it's also normal and expected for a) the editors/editorial board (not the same thing) to disagree at times with the publisher/owner, and b) the editorial board's public face to reflect the publisher/owner's view regardless.
If the editors wanted to endorse Trump but Bezos stepped in and decided that the paper would endorse Harris, or give no endorsement, the mechanism would be the same even if the outcome itself isn't. (What would also be different is endless acres of resulting news coverage praising Bezos for bravely stopping the Post's editorial board's NaziFascistKKK wrongthink, of course.)
gatvol
I would argue that endorsement while currently normalised, is not normal.
bitshiftfaced
I think people "need" their publications to do this in the sense that the publication may worry about losing readership for not "doing their part to support the morally correct candidates." But you're right. Ideally a publication would report the objective reality and let its readers decide what to make of it.
dekhn
Newspapers have several different departments- a news reporting department, which ostensibly attempts to be neutral and fair (but often isn't), and an editorial department, which is neither neutral, nor fair. The endorsement comes from the editorial side.
I can't answer why we would want newspapers to endorse presidents- except that historically, newspapers played a big role in shaping public opinion (now mostly replaced by social media).
karmakurtisaani
> How does it not undermine a paper's journalistic ethics to be neutral and fair?
Where did you get this? Every news source has some bias, journalists, editors and owners of the media house are not some ideal beings. The good ones are honest about their bias.
As to endorsing a candidate, it's absolutely for the paper to decide. Endorsing a candidate might alienate some readers, not endorsing others.
foogazi
The editorial page runs on opinion - I expect them to opine
krapp
Which is worse, a newspaper expressing an opinion or a newspaper being forbidden from expressing an opinion?
Molitor5901
Yes.
2OEH8eoCRo0
Let's do an extreme example. If one candidate were to say, "I will burn down the Washington Post" would you expect the Washington Post to be neutral? Seems fallacious.
shin_lao
This is not the title of the article.
croes
> An endorsement of Harris had been drafted by Post editorial page staffers but had yet to be published, according to two sources briefed on the sequence of events who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The decision not to publish was made by The Post’s owner — Amazon founder Jeff Bezos — according to the same sources.
But pretty much the summary of the article
sharpshadow
The writing is on the wall.
futureshock
A warning or a promise?
ChrisArchitect
Title: The Washington Post says it will not endorse a candidate for president
legitster
There's an irony here, the WaPo news room has become quite political in the last decade. But the editorial board has decided to be apolitical.
Everything is backwards.
croes
Did they?
> An endorsement of Harris had been drafted by Post editorial page staffers but had yet to be published, according to two sources briefed on the sequence of events who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly. The decision not to publish was made by The Post’s owner — Amazon founder Jeff Bezos — according to the same sources.
Seems it’s just Bezos
coding123
There is definitely a quiet support among the faang owners for Trump.
Molitor5901
I think they, like even some on the left, have reasoned that Trump will only be there for four years. That's it. He's gone, or in jail. That's four years they know who their opponent will be and the Democratic Party can prepare. Thinking a long game, it is possible the left has given up and said fine, let's get it over with.
kccoder
I haven't met a single person on the left with the mindset you described. I'm not saying they don't exist, I just can't imagine it represents more than a fraction of a percent of the left. It seems like more on the left believe that if Trump is elected, we are unlikely to see another fair election.
TMWNN
>It seems like more on the left believe that if Trump is elected, we are unlikely to see another fair election.
Don't listen to what they say, Look at what they do.
Breaking Points back in July, while discussing the Trump-Biden debate <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV8ULfwTneE> (which I highly recommend watching; it's the single best sum-up), pointed out two things for those who claim (to believe) the above:
* If TrumpNaziKKK being reelected means "no more elections ever", shouldn't Democrats have originally chosen someone other than a living corpse as his opponent?
* While discussing how the many plans among Democrats like Newsom, Whitmer, etc. (and their successors) for 2028 were disrupted/forced up by the potential to replace Biden (before Kamala's abrupt coronation), they again pointed out the paradox of on the one hand claiming that Trump will abolish elections, and on the other hand having plans for running to replacing Trump in 2028.
Read this June New York Times interview of Whitmer. <https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/22/magazine/gretchen-whitmer...> Strange, how she doesn't say (despite being very specific about things like the plot against her) that "if Trump wins, there won't be elections in 2028 and all non-MAGAtards will be executed by Trumptroopers". You'd think that would be something of sufficient urgency to repeat at every public opportunity. Almost as if actual Democratic leaders don't really believe the rhetoric they have so successfully foisted upon their supporters, including 75% of Redditors.
Another example: Post-Trump/Biden debate, Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) explicitly denying that Trump's reelection will threaten American democracy <https://www.bangordailynews.com/2024/07/02/opinion/opinion-c...>.
Yet another example: After discussing Golden's op-ed, Ezra Klein citing other Democrats who privately admit to him <https://x.com/Timodc/status/1811136469911711877> that a) they don't believe Trump is an "existential threat to democracy", and don't know why others say that, and b) that's why they aren't speaking out about Biden stepping down, because they believe the damage to their own careers from doing so is a greater threat than Trump winning
Yet another example, perhaps the most prominent of all: Biden telling George Stephanopoulos that if he loses to Trump then, well, "I'll feel, as long as I gave it my all and I did as goodest as I know I can do, that's what this is about". If he was the only person who can save the country from Orange Hitler, would that really be the extent of Biden's reaction? Really?!?
taylodl
Or maybe Big Tech has swung to the right since the Trump administration better aligns with their power lust
nerdix
They aren't playing 5D chess. They don't like the proposed Biden (and now Harris by extension) tax policy because it personally affects them.
This is about billionaires wanting to avoid taxes.
coding123
Zuck said Trump's fist in the air was the most badass thing he has ever seen. I don't think that sounds like what you are saying.
taylodl
I think you can remove one of those A's from FAANG supporting Trump, and it's not Bezos' A...
2OEH8eoCRo0
"Tyrants are OK as long as they keep taxes low." - Thomas Jefferson /s
Devasta
A cowards way of endorsing Trump, to be honest.
coldpie
Regardless of its impact on the election, this decision ends the Washington Post a serious news organization. Prior to this, you could reasonably trust it as a decent source, if questionable on tech & Amazon stories due to the ownership bias. After this, it's clear that Bezos purchased it with intent to push his own views. It's no longer a reliable source for news, it's just a mouthpiece for Amazon & Bezos's other companies.
Sad to see an important newspaper die in this way. I hope the people that do good work there are able to find new employment.
briandear
The Washington Post long ago lost all credibility. Steele Dossier anyone? Russia collusion?
BurningFrog
To be fair, I wouldn't endorse either of these clowns either!
kccoder
Even if one is Bozo and the other is Pennywise?
Same thing at LA Times: https://www.cjr.org/business_of_news/los-angeles-times-edito...