I think you should read this

 

MoJo Reader, I’m interrupting your day because I’d like you to read this message our CEO Monika Bauerlein sent out a few days ago. I think she nailed it when she criticized media baron Jeff Bezos for bending the knee to Donald Trump and wrote about the threat Big Tech poses to journalism. (I appreciated that she quoted from a piece I wrote on the same topic that I don’t want you to miss either.) What it comes down to is this: Too many outlets and too many voices in the media are trying to accommodate Trump or cover him as a normal politician. That will only help him consolidate power and continue his assault on the rule of law, democracy, and decency. My colleagues and I at Mother Jones aren’t here to be a partisan players. But we are here to serve the truth, without fear and with fervor. And here’s the bottom line: We can only do that because of the support we receive from readers like you. Donate Now

MoJo Reader, It wasn’t enough for Jeff Bezos to yank the Washington Post’s already written endorsement of Kamala Harris, just weeks ahead of the November election. It wasn’t enough for him to congratulate Donald Trump on his victory (not days, not hours, but minutes after the official call) or to trek to Mar-a-Lago to kiss the ring. It wasn’t enough for him to donate $1 million to the president’s inauguration, or to declare that he was “optimistic” about the second term of a man he had once called a danger to democracy. It wasn’t even enough for his company to pay $40 million for a documentary (air quotes) about Melania Trump, with a reported $28 million going to the First Lady directly. No, Bezos had to make an even grander gesture: Last week, he announced (on Elon Musk’s X, of course) that the Post’s opinion section henceforth would publish only articles “in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets.” And, just to hit you over the head with it, “Viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.” My colleague David Corn had it right in his piece on Big Tech’s war on journalism: “As Bezos, Musk, and Zuckerberg suck up to an autocrat to preserve and expand their own profits, they are imperiling journalism and helping democracy die, not in darkness, but in the clear light of day and within the glow of their oligarchic power.” Here at Mother Jones, no one gets to tell us what to publish because no one owns our fiercely independent newsroom. But that also means it’s incredibly hard to muster the resources to keep our journalism alive. There’s only one way for that to happen, and it’s readers like you stepping up. So please make a gift today and know that our team is out there working hard to uncover what powerful people don’t want you to know. Donate Now Of course, it’s not at all new or unusual for a newspaper owner to put his thumb on the scale of the opinion pages. They have that privilege, and historically have used it—sometimes heavy-handedly, sometimes a little more subtly. Nor is it unusual for a man who built his fortune on the backs of workers who have to pee in the back of their trucks to not see the complexity of a term like “personal liberty.” A guy who thanks those same workers (and all of us customers, who likewise had no say in the matter) for rocketing him into space doesn’t worry about such trifling contradictions. What is stunning is the rapidity with which Bezos is abasing himself before Trump. The Post killed a panel, by its longtime cartoonist, Ann Telnaes, that showed Bezos laying a sack of money at the foot of a Trump throne, but in fact Bezos has easily outdone her satire in just a few weeks. And the painful thing is, he didn’t need to. Bezos obviously has more money than God, his companies are humming, and he can afford all the space trips and cringe Annie Leibovitz photo shoots he wants. Sure, Trump can retaliate, but Bezos got through the entire first Trump term without this sort of sycophancy. In fact, up until October 2024, his ownership of the Post seemed pretty in sync with his promise, back when he bought more than a decade earlier, that “the values of The Post do not need changing. The duty of the paper is to the readers, not the owners.” The values of the Post, as it happens, already included its editorial pages advocating for “personal liberties and free markets”— you’d be hard pressed finding an opinion piece they’ve published that argues against those things. (In fact, the Post’s Dana Milbank very effectively skewered Bezos’ directive by noting that “the single greatest threat to ‘personal liberties and free markets’ in the United States today” is none other than President Donald Trump.) If Bezos wanted to reaffirm the Post’s opinion section’s libertarian bent, he could easily have given that direction to the editors he hired. But he did not do that. What he did was make a public spectacle of his diktat to the paper. It was a performance, with an audience of one, or maybe two (though I doubt Bezos really cares about impressing Elon Musk, who nonetheless felt moved to tweet “Bravo @JeffBezos” because he loves a boss-as-dictator flex). Back when Bezos bought the Post (the same year eBay founder Pierre Omidyar announced he was sinking $250 million into his own media venture), I remember having a lot of conversations that started with something like “so what’s the case for Mother Jones at this point?” If billionaires were investing in journalism, why go on struggling to keep a perennially cash-strapped nonprofit investigative newsroom alive? The answer is pretty stark now. Billionaire investment can enable some great journalism, as the Post has demonstrated over the years, but the only thing that guarantees independence is independence. That’s why Mother Jones relies on support from an incredible community of readers (and listeners to our sister radio show, Reveal) who support our reporting with a few dollars a month or a year, through a subscription or a donation. That way, no one person can ever tell us what to say. So thank you—and if you’re not yet subscribing in print or donating to support this work, please consider doing it now, in honor of Jeff Bezos. Donate Now

Onward, Monika Bauerlein, CEO Mother Jones

P.S. This is already proving to be an enormously challenging year, but knowing that you have our backs makes it possible for us to face it confidently. The proud community of MoJo donors shows that there is a way to sustain journalism without billionaire owners who kiss the ring in Mar-a-Lago. My hope is that you’ll join those ranks today.

Donate Subscribe For advertising opportunities see our online media kit. Were you forwarded this email? Sign up for Mother Jones' newsletters today. www.MotherJones.com PO Box 8539, Big Sandy, TX 75755

 

The Washington Post Is Dying. Independent Media Is The Future.

Aaron Parnas Mar 1

The Washington Post is hemorrhaging subscribers. Once a beacon of hard-hitting journalism, the paper has now increasingly become a cautionary tale of what happens when billionaires interfere with the editorial process. Following owner Jeff Bezos' announcement to revamp the paper's opinion section to reflect libertarian ideals—focusing on "personal liberties" and "free markets"—over 75,000 digital subscribers have canceled their subscriptions, myself included.

For years, The Washington Post maintained a reputation for fearless reporting, often challenging those in power. However, Bezos’ intervention in the opinion section marked a clear shift in the paper’s editorial stance. Instead of hosting a diverse range of perspectives, the Post has increasingly featured content that aligns with pro-corporate libertarianism, stifling dissenting voices that once made the publication a cornerstone of democratic debate. This ideological pivot has alienated many readers who valued the newspaper for its independent and balanced perspectives.

As the paper’s credibility eroded, subscribers took notice. Many, like myself, could no longer justify financially supporting a publication that no longer upheld the principles of independent journalism. When a newspaper prioritizes the interests of billionaires over the interests of its readers, it loses its soul—and its audience. The mass exodus of subscribers is a clear indication that people are rejecting this top-down ideological shift.

In an era when corporate media is beholden to the ultra-wealthy, it’s more important than ever to support truly independent voices who remain committed to exposing the truth, no matter how inconvenient it may be to those in power. This is why I canceled my subscription to The Washington Post, and it’s why I’m asking you to support independent journalism. Unlike legacy media outlets controlled by billionaires, independent journalists rely on reader support to continue their work. If you believe in journalism that prioritizes integrity over corporate interests, consider becoming a paid subscriber to my work. By doing so, you are directly contributing to fearless reporting that challenges mainstream narratives and amplifies the voices that powerful institutions seek to silence.

The decline of The Washington Post is a stark reminder that when billionaires own the press, the truth becomes secondary to their interests. But independent journalism remains a vital counterbalance. Support real reporting—subscribe today and join me on this journey:

Thank you all for your support.

You’re currently a free subscriber to the Parnas Perspective. For the full experience, more content, and to support Aaron, upgrade your subscription.

See the front page ad the Washington Post killed calling on Trump to fire Musk

 

Yesterday, news broke that The Washington Post backed out of a signed agreement to run a $115,000 ad calling on Trump to fire Elon Musk.

The ad, funded by Common Cause and the Southern Poverty Law Center Action Fund, was set to wrap around the front and back pages of the Tuesday edition—distributed to Congress, the Pentagon, and the White House.

The newspaper had even provided the groups with sample artwork to guide their design. And what was the sample? A recently published pro-Trump ad praising Trump’s promise to roll back electric vehicle mandates.

Yet, just days before publication, The Post abruptly pulled the ad without explanation.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t about advertising standards. The Post had no problem running a front-page wrap praising Trump for his electric vehicle rollback.

The difference? That ad didn’t run the risk of offending Donald Trump and Elon Musk.

At a moment in American history when we desperately need The Washington Post to be the fearless, truth-telling institution it once was—the paper that boldly declared "Democracy Dies in Darkness"—it’s bending over backward to curry favor with the Trump administration—and to protect Jeff Bezos’ bottom line:

• The Post killed its presidential endorsement for the first time in 40 years.
• Jeff Bezos sat front-row at Trump’s inauguration alongside Musk and others.
• A Washington Post cartoonist resigned after the paper killed a sketch that satirized tech moguls like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos for bowing to Trump.
• Now, his paper is protecting Elon Musk—pulling a signed $115,000 ad calling for Trump to fire him just days before publication.

This is what a captured press looks like.

The Washington Post’s decision isn’t just about one ad. It’s about who controls what Americans see, hear, and understand. When the press is afraid to hold power accountable, democracy dies.

COURIER exists to fight back, reaching the millions of Americans legacy media have left behind.

But as more billionaires and corporations fold to Trump and Musk, we need your help to grow.

If you believe in fearless journalism that refuses to back down, please chip in $25 now.

SEE THE AD & DONATE

In solidarity,
The COURIER Team

---

Email us: info@couriernewsroom.com

Become a member! 

To give by check:

Courier Newsroom
101 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10013

 

Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more

Welcome to Stop the Presses, a weekly newsletter about how right-wing extremism has exploited the weaknesses in American journalism and what we can do about it.

---

Can journalism survive billionaires?

Public service is often an outdated notion for media oligarchs.

Mark Jacob Dec 2

One of my first journalism jobs was at a daily newspaper in the South. The publisher, who had married into a well-off local family that owned the paper, liked to hang out in a railroad car that was refurbished as his man cave near the printing plant. Every night, he got a copy of the paper as soon as it came off the press.

One time, he called the newsroom and demanded we stop the presses because a story had the word “Israel” divided over two lines, as “Is-” and “rael.” There was no style rule against hyphenating the word “Israel,” but he insisted there was and we weren’t about to argue with him. So we stopped the presses and fixed it, delaying the press run and probably costing the paper some overtime cash. But, hey, it was his paper.

That incident taught me journalism is often at the mercy of rich people. And we’re seeing that now, big time.

The billionaire owners of the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times vetoed their editorial writers’ plans to endorse Kamala Harris for president. These weren’t frivolous decisions – they were greedy and fearful ones. Post owner Jeff Bezos has other properties such as Amazon that could be punished or rewarded by Trump. Same for Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong, a physician who has widespread health care investments and angled for a top job in the first Trump administration.

Now, Soon-Shiong has announced plans to add right-wingers to the Times editorial board, including CNN’s ridiculous Scott Jennings. And in an interview with media reporter Oliver Darcy, Soon-Shiong showed he has surgically extracted his ability to face facts. Soon-Shiong would not acknowledge to Darcy that Trump lies more than most politicians. He said "a lot of politicians lie a lot" and it was just Darcy's "opinion" that Trump lied more than most.

Soon-Shiong is a native of South Africa, as is another person threatening the viability of American journalism, Elon Musk.

Musk’s Twitter/X produces some original interviews, but its main power is its control over who sees other outlets’ news reports. That’s because X boosts some posts and throttles others. Musk ordered his staff to write special code putting his own posts in more people’s feeds, and those posts often include reckless lies, fake photos, and personal threats against people he considers his enemies.

Also troubling is X’s policy of throttling posts that include links. It’s easy to understand why platforms like X wouldn’t like links: They pull visitors off the platform. But they also make their posts more credible – by supplying the sources for the claims being made. And it’s a way to share engagement with the people who are actually doing the work of journalism. But Elon Musk doesn’t care about that.

Now Musk is fashioning himself as Trump’s co-president, helping shape policies while retaining his role controlling news coverage of those policies. That’s an authoritarian’s dream.

Another social media mogul who is bad for both journalism and democracy is Mark Zuckerberg, whose company Meta owns Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and WhatsApp.

Local news outlets have been devastated by the migration of advertising revenue to places like Facebook. That’s not Zuckerberg’s fault entirely. It’s a long-term industry trend. But Zuckerberg has fought tooth-and-nail against sharing revenue with the people whose content is helping him make money.

While not a fascist enthusiast like Musk, Zuckerberg seems desperate to avoid any conflict with Trump that could interrupt his cash flow.

During the 2020 election, Zuckerberg made donations to help local officials conduct the voting, and because of that got targeted in the Republicans’ suite of lies alleging vote fraud. Trump said Zuckerberg would “spend the rest of his life in prison” if he engaged in a similar “plot” in 2024. And Zuckerberg knuckled under, saying he wouldn’t fund further election operations because “my goal is to be neutral and not play a role one way or another.” As if helping people vote was taking sides.

Zuckerberg also removed restrictions on Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts, played to Trump’s ego by calling him a “badass” after the first assassination attempt, and made a pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago last week.

While making money off of journalism, Zuckerberg’s platforms downplay some of the most important journalism: political news. At a time when public engagement in politics is essential to the survival of democracy, Zuckerberg thinks distracted-boyfriend memes are safer content.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with media outlets trying to make money. But increasingly, news industry owners seem interested only in making money, not in performing a public service at the same time.

The paper where I was metro editor, the Chicago Tribune, is now owned by Alden Global Capital, a hedge fund with a reputation for dramatically reducing its staff and increasing its subscription prices. That’s a good formula for short-term profits but not for long-term service to communities. Hedge funds and private equity firms are so dominant in local journalism today that they own more than half of the daily newspaper circulation in this country.

For three years, I was website editor at Northwestern University’s Medill Local News Initiative, a project examining ways to make local journalism more sustainable. I wrote about email newsletters, subscriber retention, digital startups, reader events, news apps, and more. But the whole time I knew the real answer to the industry’s problems could be described in two simple words: better owners.

The trend lines are not good. Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch’s Fox News continues to be No. 1 in the cable news ratings while systematically lying about important facts to boost Republicans. MSNBC, the left-center cable channel, has been spun off from NBC Universal, creating uncertainty about its future. Elon Musk has even speculated about buying it, which would reflect a tactic in one of Trump’s favorite strongman states, Hungary, where oligarchs have bought up media that challenged leader Viktor Orbán.

Former Hungarian lawmaker Gábor Scheiring wrote an important essay last week in Politico Magazine with advice for how Americans could prevent Trump from following Orban’s playbook. “Liberal-minded billionaires should not sit idly by as they did in Hungary, watching the right take over the media,” he wrote.

There are indeed “liberal-minded billionaires” in the United States, and they need to make more of an impact in the media. Such as, for example, buying MSNBC and making it a stronger voice for truth and decency. We can’t count on corporate networks like CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS to stand up to Trump, who has already lobbed threats at TV news outlets.

Right now, the picture is dark, but there are flickers of light.

ProPublica is a nonprofit investigative outfit making a difference by revealing vital facts about abortion bans, Supreme Court corruption, and much more. There are plenty of other independent news outlets, big and small, that could use your support. (Media writer Jennifer Schulze listed many of them in a recent column.)

And the social media picture has shown new vibrancy with the growth of Bluesky, which is taking audience from Musk’s X and Zuckerberg’s Threads. Bluesky doesn’t throttle links, and CEO Jay Graber says the platform is “billionaire proof” because it’s designed “so if someone bought [it] or if the Bluesky company went down, everything is open source.” (I’m at @markjacob.bsky.social on Bluesky.)

Journalism needs to promote the sharing of power, not the consolidation of it. It needs to be independent and brave. Otherwise, democracy is impossible.

Washington Post loses 200k subscribers after Bezos bows to Trump

TO THOSE WHO CANCELED THEIR SUBSCRIPTIONS - NOW STOP BUYING FROM 

AMAZON! 

On Friday, The Washington Post—whose slogan, ironically, is “Democracy dies in darkness”—announced it would not endorse a presidential candidate for the first time in 40 years.

According to reports, an endorsement of Kamala Harris was scrapped by owner Jeff Bezos. Now, a source inside WaPo reveals over 200,000 subscribers have canceled in response.

Bezos claims that endorsing would make readers see The Post’s coverage as biased. Even if you can understand his logic, here’s the truth: Donald Trump isn’t a typical candidate.

There is no “both sides” to fascism nor to Trump’s threats to revoke media licenses and punish reporters for unfavorable coverage. And Trump’s relentless attacks are putting Post journalists at real risk. At rallies, online, and even in their personal lives, they’re facing threats and harassment just for doing their jobs.

The loss of The Washington Post’s subscribers shows how hungry Americans are for fearless, impactful new sources who are ready to dispense with the harmful “both sides” logic.

That’s where COURIER comes in. We founded COURIER in direct response to legacy media’s failures. Since the beginning, we’ve reported on Trump with facts, not fear. 

We believe restoring public trust in journalism is essential to strengthening democracy, and that starts by delivering high-quality news to the communities that need it most.

Unlike The Washington Post, we don’t chase profits. Grassroots supporters like you fund our work, so we’re free to cover the stories that truly matter. And we’ll never keep our stories behind paywalls.

To keep building our newsrooms and delivering the kind of news people want, we need your support. Can you chip in $7.00 now to help fund COURIER?

Express Donate: If you've stored your info with ActBlue Express, we'll process your contribution instantly: $5 $15 $25 $50

Thank you,
COURIER

---

Email us: info@couriernewsroom.com

Become a member! 

To give by check:
Courier Newsroom
Box 509
New York, NY 10032