|
 |
What Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos did was cowardly and unconscionable. Just 12 days before the election, he ordered the paper — his paper, one of the last stars of American journalism still alive and breathing — to cease presidential endorsements, just as it was about to publish an endorsement of Kamala Harris.
In response, readers voted with their wallets. As of this writing, more than 250,000 have canceled their subscriptions. While my initial reaction was to do the same, perhaps we all should pause for a moment and consider the consequences of a weakened Washington Post. There’s certainly a desire to hit ‘em where it hurts, but canceling subscriptions is less than lunch money for a man worth more than $200 billion. Instead, a subscriber exodus will hurt the hardworking reporters and staff at the paper, which just went through a round of layoffs and cutbacks.
To defund one of America’s last great journalistic institutions would do a disservice to its readers, and to our country. The Post reporters and editors are damn good at what they do. They are among America’s best, especially when it comes to fearless investigative reporting. We need a healthy, vibrant news business to keep check on the likes of Donald Trump, who would dearly love fewer reporters digging into his actions and exposing his lies.
Don’t think for a moment that Bezos can be counted on to rescue the paper and backfill the Post’s suddenly diminishing coffers with a spare billion. No, if it is to be, it is up to us, the American people, to save the Post and other outlets providing strong, independent journalism.
So, how do we stand up to America’s new oligarchs and show them it’s the people who have the power? I’m wide open to suggestions. We are suddenly facing the consequences of not establishing guardrails for the new billionaire class of Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, et al. But here we are.
In an op-ed on Monday, Bezos attempted to tamp down the outrage. He said he had several reasons for his decision, all of them principled. Make of his defense what you will.
He says what he did is an attempt to improve the media’s standing among Americans. He pointed to a Gallup poll that now has journalists neck and neck with members of Congress for least-trusted professionals. I don’t doubt the poll’s veracity, but I don’t believe political endorsements are the cause or the answer.
He said that endorsements do nothing to influence voter decisions. I would agree they certainly have less impact in today’s fractured media environment. So why pull it just before the election and after voting had begun in dozens of states? That seems negligent and irresponsible.
Bezos also wrote that he believes endorsements create a perception of bias. While I was taught to always let each side say its piece, that works only when both sides play by similar rules based in truth. For the last nine years, we have had one side play by rules of their own making, and it has taken many news organizations too long to adjust to this reality.
It was more than seven years ago that Kellyanne Conway coined the term “alternative facts” to defend Donald Trump’s false claims about crowd size at his inauguration. So saying Trump is unfit and unqualified to be president is not biased. It is the truth, based on mountains of actual facts reported by Bezos’s own staff!
Now, let’s talk about what many people believe are the real reasons Bezos killed the endorsement.
He is scared of Donald Trump. I am not saying he shouldn’t be. Trump has threatened to go after his perceived enemies, and that includes members of the media. But as the owner of one of the most important newspapers in the country, you have to have skin like a rhinoceros.
Bezos says there was no quid pro quo involved, but that claim raises suspicion, at the very least. And to many it rings downright hollow. His companies have billions of dollars in federal government contracts and are bidding for billions more. Those contracts generated more than half of his companies’ profits in the last quarter. Trump’s fondness for retribution is legendary, so the possibility of payback, in the form of a canceled contract, is real.
Trump and Bezos have never been chummy. Trump has been critical of the Amazon founder, but there seems to have been a thawing of late, with recent overtures by Bezos and his executives.
In July, Bezos called Trump after the assassination attempt to tell him how much he liked the fist pump photo.
According to the Post, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy called Trump in August to further the relationship. “Trump told Jassy that he was going to win the election and that Amazon should help him because it would be in the company’s best interests.”
And the head of Blue Origin, Bezos’s space exploration company, spoke with Trump last Friday — coincidently, the same day the Post announced it would not endorse anyone.
“While I do not and will not push my personal interest, I will also not allow this paper to stay on autopilot and fade into irrelevance — overtaken by unresearched podcasts and social media barbs — not without a fight. It’s too important. The stakes are too high,” Bezos wrote. Careful getting off that high horse of yours, Jeff.
Criticism of the decision has come from many at the paper or with ties to it.
Post humor columnist Alexandra Petri took it upon herself to endorse Kamala Harris for president. “I only know what’s happening because our actual journalists are out there reporting, knowing that their editors have their backs, that there’s no one too powerful to report on, that we would never pull a punch out of fear,” Petri wrote in her column.
Marty Baron, a recent editor of the Post, called Bezos’s decision “cowardice, with democracy as its casualty.”
Watergate reporting legends Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein said the decision ignored “The Washington Post’s own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy.”
The Post’s David Hoffman, who received a Pulitzer Prize just last week for a series on authoritarian regimes suppressing dissent, said, “I find it untenable and unconscionable that we have lost our voice at this perilous moment.”
What might be the most upsetting aspect of this cowardice is that it proves Trump’s strong-arm tactics work. Timothy Snyder, a Yale historian and scholar of authoritarianism, has published a list of ways to avoid succumbing to autocracy. Three of five apply here: “Do not obey in advance,” “Defend institutions,” and “Remember professional ethics.”
Jeff Bezos has so much money that if he never makes another dime, he would still remain one of the richest men in the world for the rest of his life. So the courageous thing to do would be to stand up to the bully, rather than yield to his threats in advance. That would do more to restore America’s faith in the media than the gutless act of not endorsing Kamala Harris.
From what I’ve heard, before he stubbed his toe, Bezos was well liked at the Post. What newspaper wouldn’t want an owner with unlimited resources? News organizations are expensive to run, so it seemed like a perfect match. But alas, the prospect of more billions got in the way. No matter who wins, Bezos will be OK. As for you, me, and American democracy? Let’s hope we don’t become the collateral damage of his decision.
If you value independent journalism that provides critical information to protect our democracy, please consider upgrading as a supporting member. It allows me to keep Steady sustainable and free for those who cannot afford it, especially in an election season when we need everyone to see it. Thank you.
No matter how you subscribe, I thank you for reading.
Stay Steady,
Dan
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.