Democracy dies because billionaires
October 25, 2024 12:46 PM Subscribe
Yesterday the LA Times announced it would not make an endorsement for President because the billionaire owner Patrick Soon-Shiong refused to allow it, leading the editor the resign. Today the Washington Post announced it will not endorse a candiate either, reportedly because the billionaire owner Jeff Bezos refused to allow it. Meanwhile, the Onion's new owners just made a timely endorsement of Joe Biden.
'Washington Post editor-at-large Robert Kagan resigned on Friday over the newspaper’s decision not to endorse Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris.' (Mediaite)
posted by mittens at 12:54 PM on October 25 [44 favorites]
posted by mittens at 12:54 PM on October 25 [44 favorites]
CJR is the reporting forbes.com is using.
Ian Bassin, a democracy expert, calls these moves “anticipatory obedience”posted by away for regrooving at 12:57 PM on October 25 [73 favorites]
...
Martin Baron, who edited the Post from 2012 to 2021, winning wide acclaim for his leadership of the newsroom during the Trump presidency, issued a statement to NPR denouncing the last-minute decision to withhold an endorsement. “This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty,” he said. “Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate the Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”
On anticipatory obedience and the media
posted by away for regrooving at 12:58 PM on October 25 [16 favorites]
posted by away for regrooving at 12:58 PM on October 25 [16 favorites]
We've known for a long time now whose side Your Librul Media™ is on. The WaPo may blame Bezos but their editorial page has long been home to a whole host of batshit loonitarian right-wingers whom the Washington consensus has deemed "respectable," so that just seems a convenient cover for them.
I don't follow the LA Times at all, but their fascist billionaire owner did in fact decree the "'fair and balanced' or no endorsement" position, according to what I read this morning.
posted by Pedantzilla at 12:58 PM on October 25 [14 favorites]
I don't follow the LA Times at all, but their fascist billionaire owner did in fact decree the "'fair and balanced' or no endorsement" position, according to what I read this morning.
posted by Pedantzilla at 12:58 PM on October 25 [14 favorites]
WaPo’s been a sewer since the Clinton days, but boy, Nixon must be dancing in his grave.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 1:00 PM on October 25 [8 favorites]
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 1:00 PM on October 25 [8 favorites]
'Washington Post editor-at-large Robert Kagan resigned on Friday over the newspaper’s decision not to endorse Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris.'
Been reading a lot of WWII history these days; a lot of German generals and politicians resigned too.
posted by Melismata at 1:01 PM on October 25 [32 favorites]
Been reading a lot of WWII history these days; a lot of German generals and politicians resigned too.
posted by Melismata at 1:01 PM on October 25 [32 favorites]
Post Publisher William Lewis : "The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic...".
Ah, the ever malleable American ethic: life and genocide, freedom and slavery, liberty and colonialism. Whose to say which should prevail? Certainly not the brave, objective stalwarts of the oligarchy-owned fourth estate.
posted by audi alteram partem at 1:02 PM on October 25 [13 favorites]
Ah, the ever malleable American ethic: life and genocide, freedom and slavery, liberty and colonialism. Whose to say which should prevail? Certainly not the brave, objective stalwarts of the oligarchy-owned fourth estate.
posted by audi alteram partem at 1:02 PM on October 25 [13 favorites]
See this is what I meant about the NYT not actually being worse than its peers.
posted by atoxyl at 1:03 PM on October 25 [17 favorites]
posted by atoxyl at 1:03 PM on October 25 [17 favorites]
Did the 'L.A. Times' and other news outlets pull punches to appease Trump?
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:03 PM on October 25 [5 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:03 PM on October 25 [5 favorites]
Such a nothing-burger, as the kids say.
What percentage of the electorate has ever taken into consideration the opinion of a great metropolitan newspaper, when it comes to voting?
posted by Rash at 1:04 PM on October 25 [4 favorites]
What percentage of the electorate has ever taken into consideration the opinion of a great metropolitan newspaper, when it comes to voting?
posted by Rash at 1:04 PM on October 25 [4 favorites]
I just cancelled my WaPo subscription. Fucking cowards (the leadership, not the journalists)
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 1:06 PM on October 25 [35 favorites]
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 1:06 PM on October 25 [35 favorites]
The LA Times's owner's daughter makes it sound like the decision to not endorse Harris relates to her position on Palestine.
posted by box at 1:09 PM on October 25 [11 favorites]
posted by box at 1:09 PM on October 25 [11 favorites]
Damn it, I missed the LA times. Already cancelled WaPo this morning, and NYT years ago. Welp, off to fix that now.
posted by Lyn Never at 1:09 PM on October 25 [3 favorites]
posted by Lyn Never at 1:09 PM on October 25 [3 favorites]
Kamala, what are your thoughts on a government supported media service? Yes, the devil will in the details, but having to rely on billionaires for news is not sustainable for a free democracy.
I know you’re busy, but let me know!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:09 PM on October 25 [10 favorites]
I know you’re busy, but let me know!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:09 PM on October 25 [10 favorites]
What percentage of the electorate has ever taken into consideration the opinion of a great metropolitan newspaper, when it comes to voting?
A couple dozen (2000), a few hundred (2020) or a couple thousand (2016) in the right states is all it takes.
If Harris wins or loses, it's clear that enough of America wants fascism, and we'll probably get it. Good and hard, as Mencken says. If it didn't, it would be a blowout.
posted by tclark at 1:10 PM on October 25 [29 favorites]
A couple dozen (2000), a few hundred (2020) or a couple thousand (2016) in the right states is all it takes.
If Harris wins or loses, it's clear that enough of America wants fascism, and we'll probably get it. Good and hard, as Mencken says. If it didn't, it would be a blowout.
posted by tclark at 1:10 PM on October 25 [29 favorites]
Democracy dies in darkness, eh?
People were upset in the Carolyn Hax chat today.
People were upset in the Carolyn Hax chat today.
Last chat Guest10:20 a.m.posted by jenfullmoon at 1:11 PM on October 25 [35 favorites]
You don't have to publish this (I don't expect you to) but I've just canceled my WaPo subscription over the editorial board not being allowed to endorse a president thanks to some combination of Bezos/Lewis/Shipley. Apparently I still have a couple months left because it's an annual subscription, but I'll quit today anyway. I'm sad to lose access to your chats, but not taking a stand in this election is unconscionable. I wish you the best.
Carolyn Hax Advice Columnist
I agree, unconscionable is the word. I am sorry to see you go but I understand.
Washington Post Guest10:36 a.m.
Thanks for discussing this. I’m devastated and appalled by the editorial board decision. Particularly because there are fantastic political reporters working for The Post, who I want to continue to support. I can’t imagine the strain this puts on them. I feel sick over it.
Carolyn Hax Advice Columnist
Thank you -- I know I have left more dead air out there but this is what I was looking for. The Washington Post is not a monolith. It is separate pieces that work independently, and the news side is out there doing its thing without regard for the moral repugnance of the non-endorsement. All of us need to serve our consciences, but I hope people will recognize the value of supporting the news side as well as the many excellent opinion writers. I have, just to name one, a terrible Jennifer Rubin dependency that I hope you all will help me support.
Please know too that I have never been told what to write. Advice column, yes, I know, I have no delusions of grandeur, but I also live in culture war territory. So take that for what it's worth.
(related subject matter about a question of ending friendship over Trump fandom)
The only good thing about it that I can think of is that time will take care of it eventually, and there won't be this big orange wedge forcing all this stuff openly onto sides. This is human nature and it was always there, and it will always be there, but what we don't always have is a catalyst. There are long stretches where we can hold these differences in us and get along, sometimes uneasily, sometimes great! and not really know how deeply we may disagree. But then some factors align to drag it out of us and boom. Disinformation plus divisive figure plus certain economic conditions and boom, you get a flareup of open hatreds. Social media as accelerant, too, wow.
Another guest post:
Does anyone thing it really matters whether the WaPo or LA Times endorses a presidential candidate? Everyone should know who the Editorial Board supports. And as the editor of the LA Times said when she urged people not to cancel their subscriptions, “Your subscription supports our journalists.”. If there are no subscribers, there is no newspaper.
Carolyn Hax Advice Columnist
That is the thing, yes. Well those are two things and they are correct: that an endorsement wouldn't likely change any minds and the subscriptions support the journalism, which is independent and extremely necessary.
The third thing is what people are reacting to: that when politics ceases to be just politics and becomes a moral issue, when you have the insurrection/felony conviction/sexual assault adjudication/multiple former associates sounding the alarm and his own promise in his own words of rounding up critics as enemies despite a crystal clear First Amendment (and I'm shortening the list here because I have to go, leaving out the nazi stuff ffs), then it's unacceptable not to take the stand.
Another guest poster:
I am not challenging anyone on this, but I would truly like to know: When did it become an obligation of a news organization to endorse a presidential / gubernatorial/ mayoral candidate? Though I do wish they would endorse my candidate of choice, I don’t understand the genuine outrage I am hearing, here and elsewhere. Has it always been this way and I have just missed it? How can a news org claim to be unbiased if/when they endorse a candidate, which is the definition of bias? Sorry if I’m just being obtuse.
Carolyn Hax Advice Columnist
Well, news orgs have always had their news side and editorial sides, so WaPo for example has had an editorial board all along that posts the opinion (unsigned) of The Washington Post. So that is not new. There was never an obligation to use that board to endorse candidates. If The Post were to decide to get out of the endorsement business altogether at any other time, then I'd be okay with that as an editorial stance. This was just not the election to do it, with the stakes so high from having an egregiously unfit and dangerous candidate on the ticket.
All I can say is:
Democracy Dies In Darkness
(last comment beat me to it of course!)
posted by fortitude25 at 1:12 PM on October 25 [6 favorites]
Democracy Dies In Darkness
(last comment beat me to it of course!)
posted by fortitude25 at 1:12 PM on October 25 [6 favorites]
On the one hand: I’m appalled by the clear intermingling or corporate interests with the editorial direction.
On the other hand: I’m actually not too sure if I feel newspapers should specifically endorse presidential candidates in the current political and media sphere. For smaller elections, it makes sense to me, because there’s not enough media coverage or general interest to ensure an informed voter base. But for elections where the voter base is clearly informed… I guess I’m mixed. It’s a precedent that’s been set but it’s maybe not a good one.
posted by samthemander at 1:14 PM on October 25 [1 favorite]
On the other hand: I’m actually not too sure if I feel newspapers should specifically endorse presidential candidates in the current political and media sphere. For smaller elections, it makes sense to me, because there’s not enough media coverage or general interest to ensure an informed voter base. But for elections where the voter base is clearly informed… I guess I’m mixed. It’s a precedent that’s been set but it’s maybe not a good one.
posted by samthemander at 1:14 PM on October 25 [1 favorite]
I'm borrowing (stealing) this from I don't remember who on BlueSky, but who would have ever thought that the best and most realistic campaign coverage would be from Rolling Stone and Teen Vogue?
posted by soundguy99 at 1:17 PM on October 25 [46 favorites]
posted by soundguy99 at 1:17 PM on October 25 [46 favorites]
But for elections where the voter base is clearly informed
I would say the voter base is clearly already decided, but I would not call the American voter base clearly informed.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 1:17 PM on October 25 [43 favorites]
I would say the voter base is clearly already decided, but I would not call the American voter base clearly informed.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 1:17 PM on October 25 [43 favorites]
But for elections where the voter base is clearly informed…
Clearly you are posting from Timeline 616 where the voters are curious, motivated, and engaged.
Unfortunately, we are living in Timeline 666, where the voters are making their selections based on what some knucklehead said on a YouTube channel and that one ad they saw watching CSI reruns.
posted by soundguy99 at 1:22 PM on October 25 [19 favorites]
Clearly you are posting from Timeline 616 where the voters are curious, motivated, and engaged.
Unfortunately, we are living in Timeline 666, where the voters are making their selections based on what some knucklehead said on a YouTube channel and that one ad they saw watching CSI reruns.
posted by soundguy99 at 1:22 PM on October 25 [19 favorites]
Man, Crying of Lot 49.
posted by effluvia at 1:30 PM on October 25 [4 favorites]
posted by effluvia at 1:30 PM on October 25 [4 favorites]
.
posted by limeonaire at 1:33 PM on October 25 [4 favorites]
posted by limeonaire at 1:33 PM on October 25 [4 favorites]
"... 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.” is some world-class bullshit.
posted by still_wears_a_hat at 1:37 PM on October 25 [14 favorites]
posted by still_wears_a_hat at 1:37 PM on October 25 [14 favorites]
This is pointless. No halfway reality-based news outlet can appease Trump, because he demands an endless river of fawning lies and ass-kissing, and immediately turns on anyone or anything who reports, accurately or not, on the actual things that he says and does. You can't get on Trump's good side, he doesn't have one.
posted by 1adam12 at 1:37 PM on October 25 [40 favorites]
posted by 1adam12 at 1:37 PM on October 25 [40 favorites]
Ownership seems to be jostling for a deck chair, while the iceberg awaits them and everyone else.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:37 PM on October 25 [20 favorites]
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:37 PM on October 25 [20 favorites]
A disgusting display of idiot, cowardly, spineless billionaires.
posted by freakazoid at 1:43 PM on October 25 [3 favorites]
posted by freakazoid at 1:43 PM on October 25 [3 favorites]
Spineless fuckers.
Also makes me VERY nervous, with the polymarket stuff. Yes, we know about the one donor and the trying-to-stack-the-odds and perception washing....
But
Statistically, money is cowardly, but on average it isn't dumb.
I really hope the progressive independent ground game has - and continues to be - effective up until and through the inevitable post- lawsuits.
Along those lines...we should have a thread about "which NON-DNC, grassroots org needs last minute $ in swing states" for GOTV and day-of-election support in Dem leaning districts?
posted by lalochezia at 1:46 PM on October 25 [10 favorites]
Also makes me VERY nervous, with the polymarket stuff. Yes, we know about the one donor and the trying-to-stack-the-odds and perception washing....
But
Statistically, money is cowardly, but on average it isn't dumb.
I really hope the progressive independent ground game has - and continues to be - effective up until and through the inevitable post- lawsuits.
Along those lines...we should have a thread about "which NON-DNC, grassroots org needs last minute $ in swing states" for GOTV and day-of-election support in Dem leaning districts?
posted by lalochezia at 1:46 PM on October 25 [10 favorites]
I was thinking that stuff like this has a cumulative sort of Roko's Basilisk effect, where if you don't help bring Trump to power you'll be punished if he acquires it so the incentive is to help him and that snowballs; the more people who think he's going to win the more people who help him or are afraid not to support him so he's increasingly likely to win. I don't know who's going to win and I don't trust anyone who thinks they do but I thought it was an interesting and depressing/terrifying phenomenon.
posted by an octopus IRL at 1:48 PM on October 25 [27 favorites]
posted by an octopus IRL at 1:48 PM on October 25 [27 favorites]
I'm borrowing (stealing) this from I don't remember who on BlueSky, but who would have ever thought that the best and most realistic campaign coverage would be from Rolling Stone and Teen Vogue?
Hey, that was me! First and only time I've ever made a positive contribution to the Blue! (LOL)
Seriously though, the LA Times owner's anticipatory obedience (thanks T. Snyder for that phrase, its perfect) depresses the hell out of me (more that the WAPO, even though WAPO has much greater sway). The LA Times columnists have been eviscerating the malevolence that is trumpism for a long time now. When the WAPO and NYT sanewashing became overwhelming I could always turn to the LA Times for some great columnists' work.
Fuck Shin Soong, and fuck Bezos (but the last is a forever thing).
posted by WatTylerJr at 1:53 PM on October 25 [18 favorites]
Hey, that was me! First and only time I've ever made a positive contribution to the Blue! (LOL)
Seriously though, the LA Times owner's anticipatory obedience (thanks T. Snyder for that phrase, its perfect) depresses the hell out of me (more that the WAPO, even though WAPO has much greater sway). The LA Times columnists have been eviscerating the malevolence that is trumpism for a long time now. When the WAPO and NYT sanewashing became overwhelming I could always turn to the LA Times for some great columnists' work.
Fuck Shin Soong, and fuck Bezos (but the last is a forever thing).
posted by WatTylerJr at 1:53 PM on October 25 [18 favorites]
the media stands for something regardless of how much they think they're objective... they're showing us what they stand for and it ain't democracy and a free press
posted by kokaku at 2:00 PM on October 25 [7 favorites]
posted by kokaku at 2:00 PM on October 25 [7 favorites]
Canceled my subscription and sent nasty comments and letter to the editor.
posted by leslies at 2:02 PM on October 25 [7 favorites]
posted by leslies at 2:02 PM on October 25 [7 favorites]
As I saw online today: “Democracy dies in darkness, and the corporate owned media is turning off the lights.”
posted by azpenguin at 2:03 PM on October 25 [31 favorites]
posted by azpenguin at 2:03 PM on October 25 [31 favorites]
Jeff Lawson (CEO of The Onion new parent company) is such a billionaire there’s not even a Wikipedia page for him. He is named in the Jeff Lawson disambiguation page and on the Twilio page, both without links to a bio page for him. This is not a good sign.
posted by toodleydoodley at 2:07 PM on October 25 [2 favorites]
posted by toodleydoodley at 2:07 PM on October 25 [2 favorites]
I’m actually not too sure if I feel newspapers should specifically endorse presidential candidates in the current political and media sphere.
"Minnesota Star Tribune endorses voters, not candidates, in upcoming election"
posted by BWA at 2:08 PM on October 25 [1 favorite]
"Minnesota Star Tribune endorses voters, not candidates, in upcoming election"
posted by BWA at 2:08 PM on October 25 [1 favorite]
I’m actually not too sure if I feel newspapers should specifically endorse presidential candidates in the current political and media sphere.
if not now, when?
posted by kokaku at 2:11 PM on October 25 [15 favorites]
if not now, when?
posted by kokaku at 2:11 PM on October 25 [15 favorites]
Seen several journos say that one of those editors should just push the “publish” button anyway. I suspect that the WaPo and/or the LAT endorsement is going to get leaked soon enough.
posted by azpenguin at 2:18 PM on October 25 [15 favorites]
posted by azpenguin at 2:18 PM on October 25 [15 favorites]
What percentage of the electorate has ever taken into consideration the opinion of a great metropolitan newspaper, when it comes to voting?
The problem with this isn't so much that the election will be massively impacted by such an endorsement, it's that the owners of the paper are overriding the editors. You may think that's within their rights, and I suppose it is, but I for one am not going to pay a whit of attention to a newspaper whose owners feel it is their place to override the editors. Nobody should. And if nobody should read your newspaper, what are you even doing?
And to be clear, the shorthand "X publication endorsed so-and-so" is a little misleading. As pointed out in the transcript up-thread, what it really means is "the editorial [i.e., opinion] side of X endorsed so-and-so" which is an important distinction, although often lost on people I would expect. I am sympathetic to the idea that newspapers should get rid of opinion altogether. I don't think it's necessary at all, and not particularly valuable either.
posted by axiom at 2:19 PM on October 25 [31 favorites]
The problem with this isn't so much that the election will be massively impacted by such an endorsement, it's that the owners of the paper are overriding the editors. You may think that's within their rights, and I suppose it is, but I for one am not going to pay a whit of attention to a newspaper whose owners feel it is their place to override the editors. Nobody should. And if nobody should read your newspaper, what are you even doing?
And to be clear, the shorthand "X publication endorsed so-and-so" is a little misleading. As pointed out in the transcript up-thread, what it really means is "the editorial [i.e., opinion] side of X endorsed so-and-so" which is an important distinction, although often lost on people I would expect. I am sympathetic to the idea that newspapers should get rid of opinion altogether. I don't think it's necessary at all, and not particularly valuable either.
posted by axiom at 2:19 PM on October 25 [31 favorites]
The Minnesota Strib is another paper owned by a billionaire. Seems like a trend - buy a a paper to claim civic virtue, then remove any spine it may have.
posted by zenzenobia at 2:21 PM on October 25 [13 favorites]
posted by zenzenobia at 2:21 PM on October 25 [13 favorites]
There's still time to send letters to registered but infrequent voters in Swing States! (Vote Forward)
posted by Saxon Kane at 2:24 PM on October 25 [14 favorites]
posted by Saxon Kane at 2:24 PM on October 25 [14 favorites]
You'd think the editorial staff and the owner would be smarter by now. Withholding that endorsement isn't going to save the paper if Trump wins. If Trump wins, the free press will be over in America.
posted by newdaddy at 2:29 PM on October 25 [9 favorites]
posted by newdaddy at 2:29 PM on October 25 [9 favorites]
> Along those lines...we should have a thread about "which NON-DNC, grassroots org needs last minute $ in swing states" for GOTV and day-of-election support in Dem leaning districts?
I'm sending more money to the Movement Voter Project, if you want to join me. VoteAmerica is good, too.
posted by gingerbeer at 2:32 PM on October 25 [12 favorites]
I'm sending more money to the Movement Voter Project, if you want to join me. VoteAmerica is good, too.
posted by gingerbeer at 2:32 PM on October 25 [12 favorites]
Maybe all those principled Washington Post journalists can set up their own Defector. I’d subscribe.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 2:37 PM on October 25 [10 favorites]
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 2:37 PM on October 25 [10 favorites]
Withholding that endorsement isn't going to save the paper if Trump wins. If Trump wins, the free press will be over in America.
Billionaires don’t care about the survival of the papers they own, they are making the bet that their other streams of revenue will be fuller under Trump, whereas Harris will bring more regulation and checks on their power.
posted by Jon_Evil at 2:38 PM on October 25 [19 favorites]
Billionaires don’t care about the survival of the papers they own, they are making the bet that their other streams of revenue will be fuller under Trump, whereas Harris will bring more regulation and checks on their power.
posted by Jon_Evil at 2:38 PM on October 25 [19 favorites]
Working towards the fuhrer indeed
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:39 PM on October 25 [2 favorites]
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:39 PM on October 25 [2 favorites]
“If not now, when?”
I guess that’s my point. Maybe never? Maybe it actually harms the perception of a newspaper if they take a political stance while claiming to be objective?
Honestly, my confusion about how I feel about removing an endorsement is not me secretly supporting trump, but rather musing to try to suss out what I think is right/appropriate, and I guess I’m taking you guys along for the ride (my apologies). I do feel like there is a case to be made for not endorsing anyone, even though I also feel there is clearly a candidate people should vote for (and one they should not).
My perspective is maybe also colored by my extreme disgust over the US’ support of genocide in Gaza. This does actually seem like a reasonable time to make a transition away from endorsing a candidate, both in this election and in the future, and instead shifting to providing information about their relative campaign platforms.
(To be clear: I am voting for Harris and am deeply disheartened that this is not the obvious choice for apparently half of our country. )
posted by samthemander at 2:40 PM on October 25 [3 favorites]
I guess that’s my point. Maybe never? Maybe it actually harms the perception of a newspaper if they take a political stance while claiming to be objective?
Honestly, my confusion about how I feel about removing an endorsement is not me secretly supporting trump, but rather musing to try to suss out what I think is right/appropriate, and I guess I’m taking you guys along for the ride (my apologies). I do feel like there is a case to be made for not endorsing anyone, even though I also feel there is clearly a candidate people should vote for (and one they should not).
My perspective is maybe also colored by my extreme disgust over the US’ support of genocide in Gaza. This does actually seem like a reasonable time to make a transition away from endorsing a candidate, both in this election and in the future, and instead shifting to providing information about their relative campaign platforms.
(To be clear: I am voting for Harris and am deeply disheartened that this is not the obvious choice for apparently half of our country. )
posted by samthemander at 2:40 PM on October 25 [3 favorites]
Axiom: thank you for eloquently describing the muddled reaction I’ve been having.
I hate that the owners are messing with the editorial board.
I am not sure editorial boards should be endorsing a candidate if they intend to maintain the perception of being “politically neutral” - and yes, I know, all of real life is a result of politics, but I specifically mean staking a tie to a particular political party, which is unfortunately now fully connected to the presidential vote.
posted by samthemander at 2:44 PM on October 25 [1 favorite]
I hate that the owners are messing with the editorial board.
I am not sure editorial boards should be endorsing a candidate if they intend to maintain the perception of being “politically neutral” - and yes, I know, all of real life is a result of politics, but I specifically mean staking a tie to a particular political party, which is unfortunately now fully connected to the presidential vote.
posted by samthemander at 2:44 PM on October 25 [1 favorite]
The idea that media outlets should not endorse has merit. However, the time for them to announce they would not be issuing a presidential endorsement was many months or even 2-3 years ago, particularly when the paper has issued an endorsement for decades. You don’t suddenly announce that within two weeks of the election when your editorial board was working in good faith with the understanding that they were going to issue the endorsement. The timing of this has stated loud and clear that the paper’s ownership endorses Trump, even if the people who do actual journalism work do not.
posted by azpenguin at 3:05 PM on October 25 [61 favorites]
posted by azpenguin at 3:05 PM on October 25 [61 favorites]
Why the f**k should newspapers endorse any candidate or particular issue? I've long been baffled and/or angered by political endorsements - by unions, by politicians, by businesses, by trade groups - but particularly newspapers.
posted by davidmsc at 3:10 PM on October 25 [1 favorite]
posted by davidmsc at 3:10 PM on October 25 [1 favorite]
I detected Snyder's work in Away for regrooving's post. Particularly his work in On Tyranny: Twenty lessons from the Twentieth century(archive.org)(alt link some hungarian domain). It's a bus stop read, you can make time for this one. The paperback I have is 120 pages in HUGE type and giant margins. There is also a youtube series of the 20 lessons here.
If you're not feeling clicky, here are the 20 lesson titles.
1. Do not obey in advance.
2. Defend institutions.
3. Beware the one-party state.
4. Take responsibility for the face of the world.
5. Remember professional ethics.
6. Be wary of paramilitaries.
7. Be reflective if you must be armed.
8. Stand out.
9. Be kind to our language.
10. Believe in truth.
11 . Investigate.
12. Make eye contact and small talk.
13. Practice corporeal politics.
14. Establish a private life.
15. Contribute to good causes.
16. Learn from peers in other countries.
17. Listen for dangerous words.
18. Be calm when the unthinkable arrives.
19. Be a patriot.
20. Be as courageous as you can
Do not obey in advance is the first lesson. One example he gives is how Austrians began persecuting jews after the Anschluss in expectation of the Nazis arrival.
posted by adept256 at 3:17 PM on October 25 [55 favorites]
If you're not feeling clicky, here are the 20 lesson titles.
1. Do not obey in advance.
2. Defend institutions.
3. Beware the one-party state.
4. Take responsibility for the face of the world.
5. Remember professional ethics.
6. Be wary of paramilitaries.
7. Be reflective if you must be armed.
8. Stand out.
9. Be kind to our language.
10. Believe in truth.
11 . Investigate.
12. Make eye contact and small talk.
13. Practice corporeal politics.
14. Establish a private life.
15. Contribute to good causes.
16. Learn from peers in other countries.
17. Listen for dangerous words.
18. Be calm when the unthinkable arrives.
19. Be a patriot.
20. Be as courageous as you can
Do not obey in advance is the first lesson. One example he gives is how Austrians began persecuting jews after the Anschluss in expectation of the Nazis arrival.
posted by adept256 at 3:17 PM on October 25 [55 favorites]
Also makes me VERY nervous, with the polymarket stuff. Yes, we know about the one donor and the trying-to-stack-the-odds and perception washing....
It's amusing to consider that it might be a legit hedge.
posted by ryanrs at 3:18 PM on October 25 [2 favorites]
It's amusing to consider that it might be a legit hedge.
posted by ryanrs at 3:18 PM on October 25 [2 favorites]
Since Kamala Harris and her husband have a home base in Los Angeles, the county and state are heavily Democratic voters, and readers in Los Angeles are accustomed to getting in depth information about voting from the Los Angeles Times, and the owner has just collared the editorial board, this is likely to be a very unpopular move in the community and will cost the owner a lot of subscriptions and lots of angry letters from readers.
posted by effluvia at 3:21 PM on October 25 [4 favorites]
posted by effluvia at 3:21 PM on October 25 [4 favorites]
The Washington Post Bends the Knee to Trump: Billionaires can’t be trusted to maintain the institutions of democracy. [Benjamin Wittes | The Bulwark]
posted by mazola at 3:22 PM on October 25 [11 favorites]
posted by mazola at 3:22 PM on October 25 [11 favorites]
I suspect that the WaPo and/or the LAT endorsement is going to get leaked soon enough.
Almost certainly, but the content of the endorsement isn't really important. It will say the same stuff as any other endorsement.
That Bezos singlehandedly reached down and quashed the endorsement is all anyone really needs to know here. Had WaPo endorsed Harris everyone would have forgotten tomorrow. Now millions of people are talking about the craven and controlling ownership of an ostensibly editorially independent news outlet.
Even if they went back on it and published the official endorsement (a possibility), the damage is done.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 3:30 PM on October 25 [24 favorites]
Almost certainly, but the content of the endorsement isn't really important. It will say the same stuff as any other endorsement.
That Bezos singlehandedly reached down and quashed the endorsement is all anyone really needs to know here. Had WaPo endorsed Harris everyone would have forgotten tomorrow. Now millions of people are talking about the craven and controlling ownership of an ostensibly editorially independent news outlet.
Even if they went back on it and published the official endorsement (a possibility), the damage is done.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 3:30 PM on October 25 [24 favorites]
Why the f**k should newspapers endorse any candidate or particular issue?
Well, in ye olde days, when people had a more longstanding relationship with a smallish number of papers, there is merit to the idea that the opinion pages (as opposed to news) tell you more what the editorial staff's bias (and all people have one) of a newspaper is like, rather than the alternative being that you had to read between the lines of the news stories. For example, in MI, the common understanding was always that the Detroit News leant right while the Detroit Free Press leant left. A lot of that is going to come from opinion pages, although certainly a case could be made that you could still suss it out without them, it'd just be much harder.
I think that argument holds some weight pre-internet. But now, people often just google and read what comes up, so they're not going to have any familiarity with the perceived bias of the opinion pages from the $INSERT_PAPER_HERE that wins the google SEO lottery. Now obviously for bigger fish such as NYT/WaPo/LAT that's less of a concern. But if you start with the premise that some forthrightness on opinion is good, then it's not too long before you arrive at "it's OK for the opinion pages to endorse" because that's kind of what they're there for, and how well such an endorsement comports-or-doesn't with the perceived bias of the editors is useful information. Returning to my earlier example, if say the Detroit News endorses Harris, that really means something because in normal circumstances you would expect them to endorse the Republican. Much the same way as Liz Cheney endorsing Harris should give people pause.
posted by axiom at 3:31 PM on October 25 [12 favorites]
Well, in ye olde days, when people had a more longstanding relationship with a smallish number of papers, there is merit to the idea that the opinion pages (as opposed to news) tell you more what the editorial staff's bias (and all people have one) of a newspaper is like, rather than the alternative being that you had to read between the lines of the news stories. For example, in MI, the common understanding was always that the Detroit News leant right while the Detroit Free Press leant left. A lot of that is going to come from opinion pages, although certainly a case could be made that you could still suss it out without them, it'd just be much harder.
I think that argument holds some weight pre-internet. But now, people often just google and read what comes up, so they're not going to have any familiarity with the perceived bias of the opinion pages from the $INSERT_PAPER_HERE that wins the google SEO lottery. Now obviously for bigger fish such as NYT/WaPo/LAT that's less of a concern. But if you start with the premise that some forthrightness on opinion is good, then it's not too long before you arrive at "it's OK for the opinion pages to endorse" because that's kind of what they're there for, and how well such an endorsement comports-or-doesn't with the perceived bias of the editors is useful information. Returning to my earlier example, if say the Detroit News endorses Harris, that really means something because in normal circumstances you would expect them to endorse the Republican. Much the same way as Liz Cheney endorsing Harris should give people pause.
posted by axiom at 3:31 PM on October 25 [12 favorites]
Ann Telnaes's editorial about it in the WaPo is worth seeing (unlike the facile tripe their CEO posted).
posted by joeyh at 3:36 PM on October 25 [18 favorites]
posted by joeyh at 3:36 PM on October 25 [18 favorites]
Well, their motto is "Democracy Dies in Darkness." I guess Bezos decided it was time.
posted by Naberius at 3:38 PM on October 25 [10 favorites]
posted by Naberius at 3:38 PM on October 25 [10 favorites]
I don't have a paid subscription to WaPo to cancel, so instead I cancelled my Amazon Prime subscription (yeah, yeah, I know), and made sure to say why in the survey.
Frankly, Bezos cares more about Amazon than WaPo, and that's the justification underlying this decision.
posted by suelac at 3:39 PM on October 25 [19 favorites]
Frankly, Bezos cares more about Amazon than WaPo, and that's the justification underlying this decision.
posted by suelac at 3:39 PM on October 25 [19 favorites]
Just saw this, and it is hitting me hard for whatever reason. Shameful. Grim.
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:42 PM on October 25 [5 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:42 PM on October 25 [5 favorites]
Suelac is 100% correct, kill Prime. It must die. It must die. Terrible cunts.
posted by BigBrooklyn at 4:01 PM on October 25 [4 favorites]
posted by BigBrooklyn at 4:01 PM on October 25 [4 favorites]
This week, I've cancelled subscriptions to the WaPo, LA Times, and the Nation over their non-endorsements.
Actually, the WaPo cancellation was over editorial decisions on campaign coverage, the non-endorsement broke after I'd already cancelled. But damn if it didn't validate my opinion.
This is sad because the WaPo and Times have good reporters and good pieces who are being let down by their editors and owners. Original reporting is absolutely vital for a functioning nation and I feel we're just in a death spiral for the profession. Papers stop being economically viable, the industry contracts, and the handful of remaining outlets are owned by billionaires or small-c conservative organizations (looking at you, NPR News) who are too timid to rise to the challenge.
I'm down to supporting Talking Points Memo. I also received a gift subscription to the Atlantic last Christmas, which is certainly doing yeoman's work on the Trump front. But neither of those really count as primarily "reporting" institutions (TPM can do some, but is so small they are of necessity doing a lot of news aggregation. A and the Atlantic is primarily analysis and opinion over reporting.)
posted by mark k at 4:02 PM on October 25 [7 favorites]
Actually, the WaPo cancellation was over editorial decisions on campaign coverage, the non-endorsement broke after I'd already cancelled. But damn if it didn't validate my opinion.
This is sad because the WaPo and Times have good reporters and good pieces who are being let down by their editors and owners. Original reporting is absolutely vital for a functioning nation and I feel we're just in a death spiral for the profession. Papers stop being economically viable, the industry contracts, and the handful of remaining outlets are owned by billionaires or small-c conservative organizations (looking at you, NPR News) who are too timid to rise to the challenge.
I'm down to supporting Talking Points Memo. I also received a gift subscription to the Atlantic last Christmas, which is certainly doing yeoman's work on the Trump front. But neither of those really count as primarily "reporting" institutions (TPM can do some, but is so small they are of necessity doing a lot of news aggregation. A and the Atlantic is primarily analysis and opinion over reporting.)
posted by mark k at 4:02 PM on October 25 [7 favorites]
I should have known after Bezos bought it that "Democracy Dies in Darkness" wasn't a warning but rather a mission statement.
Oh well, buh-bye WaPo subscription, you've just been cancelled.
posted by los pantalones del muerte at 4:11 PM on October 25 [6 favorites]
Oh well, buh-bye WaPo subscription, you've just been cancelled.
posted by los pantalones del muerte at 4:11 PM on October 25 [6 favorites]
This week, I've cancelled subscriptions to the WaPo, LA Times, and the Nation over their non-endorsements.
The Nation did endorse Kamala Harris. It's the interns that don't endorse her, in defiance of the magazine. Or am I missing something?
Normally I would applaud the magazine for publishing that dissent, but if it leads to people thinking that's The Nation's opinion, that's unfortunate.
posted by mistersix at 4:21 PM on October 25 [2 favorites]
The Nation did endorse Kamala Harris. It's the interns that don't endorse her, in defiance of the magazine. Or am I missing something?
Normally I would applaud the magazine for publishing that dissent, but if it leads to people thinking that's The Nation's opinion, that's unfortunate.
posted by mistersix at 4:21 PM on October 25 [2 favorites]
I've long been baffled and/or angered by political endorsements - by unions, by politicians, by businesses, by trade groups -
Unions and trade groups are often communicating to their members (in a public forum) that other members have done the research and think a certain candidate is better for their shared interests.
posted by tofu_crouton at 4:25 PM on October 25 [15 favorites]
Unions and trade groups are often communicating to their members (in a public forum) that other members have done the research and think a certain candidate is better for their shared interests.
posted by tofu_crouton at 4:25 PM on October 25 [15 favorites]
The Nation did endorse Kamala Harris. It's the interns that don't endorse her, in defiance of the magazine. Or am I missing something?
Normally I would applaud the magazine for publishing that dissent, but if it leads to people thinking that's The Nation's opinion, that's unfortunate.
Oops, no, thanks for the clarification. That's on me.
I saw the headline, in the Nation, that Harris did not deserve the Nation's endorsement and assumed things I didn't need to assume since I could have clicked on the piece. I didn't feel like clicking on the piece is my main defense.
posted by mark k at 4:33 PM on October 25
Normally I would applaud the magazine for publishing that dissent, but if it leads to people thinking that's The Nation's opinion, that's unfortunate.
Oops, no, thanks for the clarification. That's on me.
I saw the headline, in the Nation, that Harris did not deserve the Nation's endorsement and assumed things I didn't need to assume since I could have clicked on the piece. I didn't feel like clicking on the piece is my main defense.
posted by mark k at 4:33 PM on October 25
Why the f**k should newspapers endorse any candidate or particular issue?
why shouldn't they?
newspapers, magazines, websites, podcasts are not objective, neutral entities... they have biases and opinions however much they want to pretend they don't. they have authority... people care what they think.
if you doubt that, for example, ask any middle of the road liberal NYT reader what they think about trans kids having medical treatment or playing sports... I'd bet good money they'll parrot the shitty takes of the NYT.
so, yes, the major newspapers endorsing a candidate makes a difference. and as someone said above, announcing you're not endorsing a candidate now is basically endorsing Trump and the Republicans. which, well, amab? all media are bastards?
posted by kokaku at 4:35 PM on October 25 [8 favorites]
why shouldn't they?
newspapers, magazines, websites, podcasts are not objective, neutral entities... they have biases and opinions however much they want to pretend they don't. they have authority... people care what they think.
if you doubt that, for example, ask any middle of the road liberal NYT reader what they think about trans kids having medical treatment or playing sports... I'd bet good money they'll parrot the shitty takes of the NYT.
so, yes, the major newspapers endorsing a candidate makes a difference. and as someone said above, announcing you're not endorsing a candidate now is basically endorsing Trump and the Republicans. which, well, amab? all media are bastards?
posted by kokaku at 4:35 PM on October 25 [8 favorites]
I don't know why people are asserting this is about money.
Jeff Bezos doesn't need money. The idea that he'll be dinged in any way by cancelled WaPo subscriptions is unhinged.
He is physically afraid or there is something to be had on him. Just like all of the others. The latter scenario is easy pickings and it is likely a combination of both.
Again. Just like all the others.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 5:29 PM on October 25 [12 favorites]
Jeff Bezos doesn't need money. The idea that he'll be dinged in any way by cancelled WaPo subscriptions is unhinged.
He is physically afraid or there is something to be had on him. Just like all of the others. The latter scenario is easy pickings and it is likely a combination of both.
Again. Just like all the others.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 5:29 PM on October 25 [12 favorites]
The AP article on the topic, I think, made the claim that refusing to endorse was about not widening the divide in the country, which I think is disingenuous. The divide is the size of the Grand Canyon already and one side is actively dangerous to the country.
posted by Peach at 5:36 PM on October 25 [7 favorites]
posted by Peach at 5:36 PM on October 25 [7 favorites]
He is physically afraid or there is something to be had on him.
Here's a photo of Jeff Bezos with Ghislaine Maxwell.
posted by adept256 at 5:42 PM on October 25 [8 favorites]
Here's a photo of Jeff Bezos with Ghislaine Maxwell.
posted by adept256 at 5:42 PM on October 25 [8 favorites]
Here's a photo of Jeff Bezos with Ghislaine Maxwell.
yeahhhhhhhhhhh
that sort of thing
posted by A Terrible Llama at 5:43 PM on October 25 [5 favorites]
yeahhhhhhhhhhh
that sort of thing
posted by A Terrible Llama at 5:43 PM on October 25 [5 favorites]
He is physically afraid or there is something to be had on him. Just like all of the others. The latter scenario is easy pickings and it is likely a combination of both.
Blue Origin execs met with Donald Trump today.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 5:56 PM on October 25 [20 favorites]
Blue Origin execs met with Donald Trump today.
posted by Blue Jello Elf at 5:56 PM on October 25 [20 favorites]
Pascal's Wager for our timeline, lol
posted by ryanrs at 6:09 PM on October 25 [3 favorites]
posted by ryanrs at 6:09 PM on October 25 [3 favorites]
It's going to be a really rough few weeks and/or the rest of our lives.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 6:11 PM on October 25 [19 favorites]
posted by A Terrible Llama at 6:11 PM on October 25 [19 favorites]
I've been watching the "Financial Audit" yt channel and while I don't resemble those financial basket cases it did prompt me to question Prime's $140 re-up cost coming next month. I only use it for free shipping and the 5% discounts, but $140/5% is pushing $3000/yr and I don't spend that much at Amazon/Whole Paycheck anyway.
posted by torokunai at 6:14 PM on October 25 [3 favorites]
posted by torokunai at 6:14 PM on October 25 [3 favorites]
Oh look it's the Streisand Effect. Had the WaPo been permitted by its oligarch to endorse Harris, everyone would have yawned. Nothing to see here, move on. But now Bezos and billionaire control of the media are the topic du jour.
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 6:20 PM on October 25 [15 favorites]
posted by outgrown_hobnail at 6:20 PM on October 25 [15 favorites]
I cancelled my subscription. Yes I know it's not the fault of the journalists, and it won't impact Bezos at all, or William Lewis for that matter. But it is just too discouraging seeing this cowardly behavior and bullsh*t excuses, why should I pay to support that?
posted by dougfelt at 6:28 PM on October 25 [7 favorites]
posted by dougfelt at 6:28 PM on October 25 [7 favorites]
By cancelling the endorsement, the owner signals that they will be on board with dismantling democracy, and if it happens they will keep their newspapers in line when the time comes.
posted by NotAYakk at 6:33 PM on October 25 [7 favorites]
posted by NotAYakk at 6:33 PM on October 25 [7 favorites]
Kamala simply hasn't earned their votes.
posted by 2N2222 at 6:46 PM on October 25 [6 favorites]
posted by 2N2222 at 6:46 PM on October 25 [6 favorites]
Yeah, I see Bezos' call has little to do with WaPo and more to do with the consequences for the rest of his businesses if Trump wins and comes after him. Trump doesn't give a shit about Amazon and monopsony and so forth: he thinks oligarchs are great! But he doesn't like WaPo and so he will punish Bezos by punishing Amazon and his other businesses.
What Bezos doesn't understand is, under Putin oligarchs aren't free. They have to toe the line.
That said, TFG isn't long for this world, I suspect; in which case Bezos gets to argue with JDV, who is less insane and more strategic.
Bezos will be fine, whichever. He doesn't care about what TFG will do to anyone else because none of that will affect him.
posted by suelac at 7:13 PM on October 25 [3 favorites]
What Bezos doesn't understand is, under Putin oligarchs aren't free. They have to toe the line.
That said, TFG isn't long for this world, I suspect; in which case Bezos gets to argue with JDV, who is less insane and more strategic.
Bezos will be fine, whichever. He doesn't care about what TFG will do to anyone else because none of that will affect him.
posted by suelac at 7:13 PM on October 25 [3 favorites]
Blue Origin, like any US aerospace company, is profoundly beholden to the federal government. And Blue Origin, unlike Boeing or (probably) SpaceX, is not too big to fail.
posted by Sauce Trough at 7:26 PM on October 25 [2 favorites]
posted by Sauce Trough at 7:26 PM on October 25 [2 favorites]
Real money isn't made via ordinary capitalism, it's made via government insider-info, approvals and contracts. You use ordinary capitalism to accumulate enough wealth to amass table-stakes with the government. Scratch off the veneer of some of these folks and you'll reveal a serious Governmnent pork addict.
Soon-Shiong had difficulties getting FDA approval for his efforts under Trump. Bezos wans AWS to win defense contracts instead of MS or Oracle. That's their motivation.
[Edit: Concur w/Sauce Trough who posted while I was writing this]
posted by zaixfeep at 7:41 PM on October 25 [20 favorites]
Soon-Shiong had difficulties getting FDA approval for his efforts under Trump. Bezos wans AWS to win defense contracts instead of MS or Oracle. That's their motivation.
[Edit: Concur w/Sauce Trough who posted while I was writing this]
posted by zaixfeep at 7:41 PM on October 25 [20 favorites]
Buckle up, kids, it's the first big October surprise.
posted by tclark
Except that it is not in the slightest bit surprising. The billionaire class, with one or two exceptions maybe, are clearly in the tank for Trump and that whole agenda, or at least think they can survive it and come out more or less intact.
It is completely delusional. The Trumps and Vances and Millers and Bannons of this world will crush them like bugs too in time. But for now that delusion has not yielded to reality.
posted by Pouteria at 8:16 PM on October 25 [2 favorites]
posted by tclark
Except that it is not in the slightest bit surprising. The billionaire class, with one or two exceptions maybe, are clearly in the tank for Trump and that whole agenda, or at least think they can survive it and come out more or less intact.
It is completely delusional. The Trumps and Vances and Millers and Bannons of this world will crush them like bugs too in time. But for now that delusion has not yielded to reality.
posted by Pouteria at 8:16 PM on October 25 [2 favorites]
WaPo gave us Snowden, a great US citizen, one of the best of my life -- smart as hell, remarkable integrity, remarkable courage.
They wouldn't dream of giving us anything good today. What they gave us today is all we're going to get from them, from now on.
~~~~~
He is physically afraid or there is something to be had on him. Just like all of the others. The latter scenario is easy pickings and it is likely a combination of both.
Again. Just like all the others.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 7:29 PM on October 25
Everybody is vulnerable, we all have things in our past -- or our present -- that we are ashamed of, and/or would get us into huge trouble.
Or how about just knowing that Trump is a knife-fighter, nothing he won't do or say to keep you in line.
I bet you're right, Bezos is scared, and no doubt has good reasons.
~~~~~
But, hey, the World Series is here, probably they'll give us good baseball writing, pretty pictures of the greatest players in the game, some highlight vids. Journalism!
posted by dancestoblue at 8:20 PM on October 25 [2 favorites]
They wouldn't dream of giving us anything good today. What they gave us today is all we're going to get from them, from now on.
~~~~~
He is physically afraid or there is something to be had on him. Just like all of the others. The latter scenario is easy pickings and it is likely a combination of both.
Again. Just like all the others.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 7:29 PM on October 25
Everybody is vulnerable, we all have things in our past -- or our present -- that we are ashamed of, and/or would get us into huge trouble.
Or how about just knowing that Trump is a knife-fighter, nothing he won't do or say to keep you in line.
I bet you're right, Bezos is scared, and no doubt has good reasons.
~~~~~
But, hey, the World Series is here, probably they'll give us good baseball writing, pretty pictures of the greatest players in the game, some highlight vids. Journalism!
posted by dancestoblue at 8:20 PM on October 25 [2 favorites]
One more cancellation on the pile. When the cancellation page asked me why, I picked the content option to make the point.
Next: Amazon prime.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 8:47 PM on October 25 [6 favorites]
Next: Amazon prime.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 8:47 PM on October 25 [6 favorites]
Kamala has by far the most important billionaires sewed up. But they have her sewed up also, and will keep her out of the presidency. These are the tail who is wagging the dog, the scum beings who keep the US backing their horrific murder campaign in Gaza.
There is no way Kamala wants this, she made her bones by helping the helpless, by locking up scum who needed to be locked up, never backing down even an inch no matter their threats -- she's tough as nails, not a person you'd want to fight.
If she could she'd kick all of those pieces of shit into cages because of their war crimes but she can't, she's beholden to them. They own her. And she is a terrible liar, as bad as Bush, she needs to smile and change subject and she's not able to do it with any grace or charm -- Clinton was a master. She may learn to lie but it's too late for this one and, too bad for us, I think this will be her only shot.
posted by dancestoblue at 8:57 PM on October 25 [3 favorites]
There is no way Kamala wants this, she made her bones by helping the helpless, by locking up scum who needed to be locked up, never backing down even an inch no matter their threats -- she's tough as nails, not a person you'd want to fight.
If she could she'd kick all of those pieces of shit into cages because of their war crimes but she can't, she's beholden to them. They own her. And she is a terrible liar, as bad as Bush, she needs to smile and change subject and she's not able to do it with any grace or charm -- Clinton was a master. She may learn to lie but it's too late for this one and, too bad for us, I think this will be her only shot.
posted by dancestoblue at 8:57 PM on October 25 [3 favorites]
I’m probably going to cancel Amazon. I’ve spent one fuckton of money with them these past few years, mostly because of where I live - nearly 40 miles from the nearest grocery store or Walmart. And some things only Amazon has now. Or available locally but at horribly inflated prices.
When I do cancel I will let them know precisely why. Not just about the Post, but also for the way they are laying waste to the place where I live with endless data centers and power schemes to make them go. Parts of Eastern Oregon are starting to look like an industrial wasteland. Next thing for them is nuclear power. They want power for their data centers so bad they will likely make a deal with Trump to support them; the plan is to build them on the Hanford site. They have turned into a very scary outfit for sure.
posted by cybrcamper at 9:42 PM on October 25 [6 favorites]
When I do cancel I will let them know precisely why. Not just about the Post, but also for the way they are laying waste to the place where I live with endless data centers and power schemes to make them go. Parts of Eastern Oregon are starting to look like an industrial wasteland. Next thing for them is nuclear power. They want power for their data centers so bad they will likely make a deal with Trump to support them; the plan is to build them on the Hanford site. They have turned into a very scary outfit for sure.
posted by cybrcamper at 9:42 PM on October 25 [6 favorites]
If you're looking for a major US newspaper to support that isn't asking whether it's time to crack open each other's heads and feast on the goo inside, The Philadelphia Inquirer endorsed Harris, is the largest American paper operated as a public benefit corporation, has a woman as its publisher, and has a really cheap ($1 for 6 months) subscription offer going right now.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:18 PM on October 25 [21 favorites]
posted by tonycpsu at 10:18 PM on October 25 [21 favorites]
Kamala has by far the most important billionaires sewed up
What are you basing this claim on? Billionaires and large donors are overwhelmingly Republican.
I don't know why people are asserting this is about money.
Because it's a lot more plausible than inventing conspiracy theories.
Jeff Bezos doesn't need money. The idea that he'll be dinged in any way by cancelled WaPo subscriptions is unhinged.
Jeff Bezos has spent his entire life pursuing money and demonstrating that it is very important to him. It's probably not just straight cash, but the ego boost he gets by "winning," or maybe the vanity that comes with being able to drop a billion dollars on mediocre Tolkien fanfic, or some combination, but it's just obvious it does matter.
If you posit that it does not matter, then sure, I could imagine having to come up with odd explanations for his behavior. They'd be bad explanations, is all I'm saying.
He reshuffled the editors at the WaPo earlier because the WaPo isn't profitable. He's not Charles Foster "it'd be fun to run a newspaper" Kane, he wanted to be the genius that proves he can solve the journalism business model problem. But the WaPo is likely the least of his concerns.
Blue Origin has 10,000 employees and billions in government contracts. Amazon has massive revenues, but much of it is a low margin business that would be extremely vulnerable to selective taxation or regulation. Trump targeted Amazon during his last term, but that was when we had a functional rule of law and a Supreme Court that still pretended to care. When some people think about a Trump term without those protections, they worry about personal safety; Bezos worries about his business legacy.
posted by mark k at 10:38 PM on October 25 [15 favorites]
What are you basing this claim on? Billionaires and large donors are overwhelmingly Republican.
I don't know why people are asserting this is about money.
Because it's a lot more plausible than inventing conspiracy theories.
Jeff Bezos doesn't need money. The idea that he'll be dinged in any way by cancelled WaPo subscriptions is unhinged.
Jeff Bezos has spent his entire life pursuing money and demonstrating that it is very important to him. It's probably not just straight cash, but the ego boost he gets by "winning," or maybe the vanity that comes with being able to drop a billion dollars on mediocre Tolkien fanfic, or some combination, but it's just obvious it does matter.
If you posit that it does not matter, then sure, I could imagine having to come up with odd explanations for his behavior. They'd be bad explanations, is all I'm saying.
He reshuffled the editors at the WaPo earlier because the WaPo isn't profitable. He's not Charles Foster "it'd be fun to run a newspaper" Kane, he wanted to be the genius that proves he can solve the journalism business model problem. But the WaPo is likely the least of his concerns.
Blue Origin has 10,000 employees and billions in government contracts. Amazon has massive revenues, but much of it is a low margin business that would be extremely vulnerable to selective taxation or regulation. Trump targeted Amazon during his last term, but that was when we had a functional rule of law and a Supreme Court that still pretended to care. When some people think about a Trump term without those protections, they worry about personal safety; Bezos worries about his business legacy.
posted by mark k at 10:38 PM on October 25 [15 favorites]
Bernie Sanders Interview - "The ideas that I am talking about are ideas that are widely supported. Everything that I talk about, raising the minimum wage, healthcare for all, a tax system, which demands the billionaires pay their fair share. Those are all popular ideas... The establishment doesn't like that. They really don't... This is how they succeed. What they say, Lex is, the world is the way it is. It always will be this way. We got the wealth, we got the power. And don't think of anything else. This is the way it is. You have no power, give up. That they don't say it quite that way. But that's really what the intent is. And what we showed is, guess what, you know, running an outsider campaign, we took on the Democratic establishment, we came close to winning it, and we did win 23 states. And the ideas that we're talking about are the ideas that working class people, young people believe in." (via)
Elon Musk's Secret Conversations With Vladimir Putin
posted by kliuless at 11:26 PM on October 25 [15 favorites]
What's the way to fight this thing that Martin Luther King tried to fight, which is the military industrial complex?also btw...
It's huge. I mean, it gets to the broader issue of where we are a nation. And what I, you know, almost uniquely in Congress talk about is the fact that we are moving, Lex, to an oligarchic form of society. And not a lot of people are familiar with that term, but what it means, you know, we talk about oligarchy in Russia, oh, and Putin is surrounded by the oligarchs. Well guess what? What do you think is happening in the United States? So what you have right now is an economy with more concentration of ownership than we've ever had, right? That means whether it's agriculture, transportation, healthcare, whatever it may be, fewer and fewer massively large corporations control what's produced and the prices we pay.
And then you look at our political system and it's, we don't talk about it, what is the reality of the political system today? And that is that billionaires are spending huge amounts of money to buy this election...
So how do we fix the system? How do we get money outta politics?
This is not, you know, like many other issues, we don't have to reinvent the wheel here. It exists in other countries. If you go to, you know, every country has their own election system, but nobody has a system where billionaires can spend unlimited sums of money through super PACs to elect the candidates of their choice. So first thing you gotta do... we move to public funding of elections.
Elon Musk's Secret Conversations With Vladimir Putin
posted by kliuless at 11:26 PM on October 25 [15 favorites]
Jeff Bezos doesn't need money.
Nobody with the attitude that it's possible to have enough money and need no more gets to be a billionaire.
posted by straight at 11:30 PM on October 25 [17 favorites]
Nobody with the attitude that it's possible to have enough money and need no more gets to be a billionaire.
posted by straight at 11:30 PM on October 25 [17 favorites]
LA Times Planned ‘Case Against Trump’ Series Alongside Kamala Harris Endorsement Before Owner Quashed It
Alongside its endorsement of Kamala Harris, the Los Angeles Times editorial board had also planned a multi-part series against Donald Trump before the whole thing was quashed by owner Patrick Soon-Shiong, TheWrap has learned.posted by autopilot at 11:57 PM on October 25 [18 favorites]
According to internal memos viewed by TheWrap, the series, tentatively called “The Case Against Trump,” would have ran throughout this week. The endorsement of Kamala Harris would then have been published on Sunday.
[...] On Thursday, editorial writer Karin Klein, and Pulitzer Prize-winner Robert Greene, both quit. They followed Editorial Editor Mariel Garza, who resigned in protest on Wednesday. Both Klein and Garza have specifically cited Soon-Shiong’s actions as the reason for their exits.
The problem isn't Bezos, nor Soon-Shiong, specifically. The problem is billionaires.
We shouldn't have them. My preferred method of achieving that is taxation.
Many years ago I gave up NYT because of their Trump pumping. Today I unsubscribed from WaPo because although our democracy may be having some issues, I still think it can have many more good days, and it's too early for silent euthanasia in the dark.
This Philadelphia Inquirer, do they like to platform TERFs?
posted by nat at 1:34 AM on October 26 [7 favorites]
We shouldn't have them. My preferred method of achieving that is taxation.
Many years ago I gave up NYT because of their Trump pumping. Today I unsubscribed from WaPo because although our democracy may be having some issues, I still think it can have many more good days, and it's too early for silent euthanasia in the dark.
This Philadelphia Inquirer, do they like to platform TERFs?
posted by nat at 1:34 AM on October 26 [7 favorites]
He is physically afraid or there is something to be had on him.
Ridiculous - someone of Bezos’ wealth is essentially untouchable - he could stand up the Amazon Basics militia next week to protect him, if needed. I strongly suspect this is just about not having a bitter, vengeful Trump administration targeting Amazon for perceived slights, avoiding right wing boycotting, etc. The bottom line.
If the last 8 years have demonstrated anything, it’s just how personally far above the law the truly wealthy and powerful are.
posted by ryanshepard at 4:30 AM on October 26 [7 favorites]
Ridiculous - someone of Bezos’ wealth is essentially untouchable - he could stand up the Amazon Basics militia next week to protect him, if needed. I strongly suspect this is just about not having a bitter, vengeful Trump administration targeting Amazon for perceived slights, avoiding right wing boycotting, etc. The bottom line.
If the last 8 years have demonstrated anything, it’s just how personally far above the law the truly wealthy and powerful are.
posted by ryanshepard at 4:30 AM on October 26 [7 favorites]
It’s not even money, it’s power. Money is a source of power. Being integral to an authoritarian government is a source of power.
Each billionaire is betting that in the coming purges and reckonings they’re gonna among the ones that make it out ahead.
The Wikipedia article on IG Farben is illustrative. Especially the post-war trials in which “ All defendants who were sentenced to prison received early release. Most were quickly restored to their directorships and other positions in post-war companies, and some were awarded the Federal Cross of Merit.”
posted by Jon_Evil at 4:45 AM on October 26 [3 favorites]
Each billionaire is betting that in the coming purges and reckonings they’re gonna among the ones that make it out ahead.
The Wikipedia article on IG Farben is illustrative. Especially the post-war trials in which “ All defendants who were sentenced to prison received early release. Most were quickly restored to their directorships and other positions in post-war companies, and some were awarded the Federal Cross of Merit.”
posted by Jon_Evil at 4:45 AM on October 26 [3 favorites]
I used to buy bottled water weekly at Winco 8 years ago and you can't unconvince me that the weekly National Enquirer hit piece covers on Clinton didn't swing the election.
posted by torokunai at 4:59 AM on October 26 [1 favorite]
posted by torokunai at 4:59 AM on October 26 [1 favorite]
"... 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.” is some world-class bullshit.
This is this from the article by CEO William Lewis. I don't read it as bullshit; I read it as "Jeff Bezos is just off camera forcing me to read this statement, but of course you need to vote for Harris." But Lewis should have resigned, like columnist Robert Kagan did.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 6:06 AM on October 26 [2 favorites]
I think that it's just possible that Bezos doesn't really give a shit who wins. He just doesn't want any problems if Trump wins. He makes a lot of money, and what real profit is there in telling the guy who's taking the office to go fuck himself? This sounds cynical, but is it any more cynical than Vote Blue No Matter Who? Bezos is voting Green No Matter Who. Not literally, obviously! I'm pretty sure he's not endorsing the Green party, lol.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:46 AM on October 26 [7 favorites]
posted by kittens for breakfast at 6:46 AM on October 26 [7 favorites]
Trump himself is clearly ailing and failing. That has become increasingly clear recently. If the timing of this stuff means anything, I think it’s much more likely that the billionaires involved are jockeying for influence and position in a JD Vance-led administration.
posted by eviemath at 6:47 AM on October 26 [6 favorites]
posted by eviemath at 6:47 AM on October 26 [6 favorites]
A JD Vance administration is a Peter Thiel administration. With all that that entails.
And we're assuming that Vance will be in charge if Trump wins. If he literally dies, sure, but as long as Trump's heart is beating, he'll be President, if only in name. That's more or less what he was when he was President. He didn't give much of a damn about the vast majority of US policy and Presidential responsibilities. Someone else was steering him to make the big decisions, the ones that mattered to money rather than Trump's ego. And it's pretty damn clear by now that person was not Mike Pence.
posted by Naberius at 6:59 AM on October 26 [9 favorites]
And we're assuming that Vance will be in charge if Trump wins. If he literally dies, sure, but as long as Trump's heart is beating, he'll be President, if only in name. That's more or less what he was when he was President. He didn't give much of a damn about the vast majority of US policy and Presidential responsibilities. Someone else was steering him to make the big decisions, the ones that mattered to money rather than Trump's ego. And it's pretty damn clear by now that person was not Mike Pence.
posted by Naberius at 6:59 AM on October 26 [9 favorites]
Washington Post editor-at-large resigns over Bezos' decision. He explains why
Good interview.
They make a good point about how canceling Amazon would hurt Bezos more than just canceling a Post subscription (which others have also mentioned). I think this may be what finally makes me do that.
posted by Glinn at 8:01 AM on October 26 [8 favorites]
Good interview.
They make a good point about how canceling Amazon would hurt Bezos more than just canceling a Post subscription (which others have also mentioned). I think this may be what finally makes me do that.
posted by Glinn at 8:01 AM on October 26 [8 favorites]
JD Vance-led administration
Chilling. WTAF that this is a possibility? "Darkest timeline" no longer seems to cover it.
I must add I remain hopeful in this moment. I recommend it. You could go watch Kelly Rowland and Beyonce announce Kamala.
posted by Glinn at 8:13 AM on October 26 [2 favorites]
Chilling. WTAF that this is a possibility? "Darkest timeline" no longer seems to cover it.
I must add I remain hopeful in this moment. I recommend it. You could go watch Kelly Rowland and Beyonce announce Kamala.
posted by Glinn at 8:13 AM on October 26 [2 favorites]
Another piece from The Bulwark by editor Jonathan V. Last (The Guardrails Are Already Crumpling) nails something important:
posted by soundguy99 at 8:15 AM on October 26 [30 favorites]
No one cares about the Washington Post’s presidential endorsement. It will not move a single vote. The only people who care about newspaper editorial page endorsements are newspaper editorial writers.The piece then goes on to note the parallels between this and Putin's consolidation over power over Russian oligarchs during his first administration.
No one really cares all that much about the future of the Washington Post, either. I mean, I care about it, because I care about journalism and I respect the institution.
But this isn’t a journalism story. It’s a business story.
Following Trump’s 2016 victory, the Post leaned hard into its role as a guardian of democracy. This meant criticizing, and reporting aggressively on, Trump, who responded by threatening Bezos’s various business interests.
And that’s what this story is about: It’s about the most consequential American entrepreneur of his generation signaling his submission to Trump—and the message that sends to every other corporation and business leader in the country. In the world.
Killing this editorial says, If Jeff Bezos has to be nice to Trump, then so do you. Keep your nose clean, bub.
posted by soundguy99 at 8:15 AM on October 26 [30 favorites]
I canceled my subscription to the Post today.
I initially signed up in the run-up to the 2016 election because the paper was doing good reporting (relative to the broader media landscape). It's also generally consistent in terms of its track record for high-quality second-hand reporting, and it produced solid investigative reporting.
But for a long while now, I've been extremely annoyed by its opinion section (sure, just ignore it, etc., but...). I'm also just generally frustrated by the increasingly tortured deployment of euphemistic editorial language and the amount of focus given to horse-race journalism.
Now I'm going to go give money to propublica, whose reporting has been quite impressive lately.
posted by Room 101 at 8:15 AM on October 26 [9 favorites]
I initially signed up in the run-up to the 2016 election because the paper was doing good reporting (relative to the broader media landscape). It's also generally consistent in terms of its track record for high-quality second-hand reporting, and it produced solid investigative reporting.
But for a long while now, I've been extremely annoyed by its opinion section (sure, just ignore it, etc., but...). I'm also just generally frustrated by the increasingly tortured deployment of euphemistic editorial language and the amount of focus given to horse-race journalism.
Now I'm going to go give money to propublica, whose reporting has been quite impressive lately.
posted by Room 101 at 8:15 AM on October 26 [9 favorites]
There've now been three resignations at the Times and at least one at the Post.
The Post columnists and editorial staff are in open revolt; almost all the columnists signing a letter criticizing the decision and it was published. And almost every op-ed last night before I went to bed was about the cowardly non-endorsement. Letters editor Alyssa Rosenberg put out an open call for letters on the decision and promised to read them all and publish as many as she could. They are in charge of putting out the opinion section, and were prohibited from making an official endorsement, but are now publishing pieces in almost open revolt.
For me a big narrative this election is elite failure. The DoJ under Merrick Garland, the Supreme Court, elite reporters at the Times, billionaires, etc., etc., are treating the worst threat to American democracy since 1860 as business as usual.
But the flip side is the courage of a lot of professionals one rank down. State judges, prosecutors, AGs, even many Republican officials, are defending institutions. The NYT fails but the Philadelphia Inquirer rises to the challenge. Owners and top editors cower and their staff resigns or stands up in defiance.
posted by mark k at 8:21 AM on October 26 [24 favorites]
The Post columnists and editorial staff are in open revolt; almost all the columnists signing a letter criticizing the decision and it was published. And almost every op-ed last night before I went to bed was about the cowardly non-endorsement. Letters editor Alyssa Rosenberg put out an open call for letters on the decision and promised to read them all and publish as many as she could. They are in charge of putting out the opinion section, and were prohibited from making an official endorsement, but are now publishing pieces in almost open revolt.
For me a big narrative this election is elite failure. The DoJ under Merrick Garland, the Supreme Court, elite reporters at the Times, billionaires, etc., etc., are treating the worst threat to American democracy since 1860 as business as usual.
But the flip side is the courage of a lot of professionals one rank down. State judges, prosecutors, AGs, even many Republican officials, are defending institutions. The NYT fails but the Philadelphia Inquirer rises to the challenge. Owners and top editors cower and their staff resigns or stands up in defiance.
posted by mark k at 8:21 AM on October 26 [24 favorites]
But the flip side is the courage of a lot of professionals one rank down.
People like to trot out the chestnut about how living your values means doing the right thing even when nobody’s watching.
I agree that that’s important and there can be temptation to break the rules when you think you can get away with it. But what takes real courage is doing the right thing when everyone is watching, especially when it comes at a direct personal cost.
To everyone - WaPo and LA Times writers and editors, yes, as well as anyone else (including you, reader!) - who has ever been in a position where they faced a choice and decided “This is wrong and I won’t be a part of it”: thank you. We see you, and your courage makes a difference.
posted by nickmark at 8:49 AM on October 26 [14 favorites]
People like to trot out the chestnut about how living your values means doing the right thing even when nobody’s watching.
I agree that that’s important and there can be temptation to break the rules when you think you can get away with it. But what takes real courage is doing the right thing when everyone is watching, especially when it comes at a direct personal cost.
To everyone - WaPo and LA Times writers and editors, yes, as well as anyone else (including you, reader!) - who has ever been in a position where they faced a choice and decided “This is wrong and I won’t be a part of it”: thank you. We see you, and your courage makes a difference.
posted by nickmark at 8:49 AM on October 26 [14 favorites]
thought experiment: Donald Trump declares victory on Nov 5, as we all know he will do. Fox News amplifies the claim. What does WaPo do?
posted by fingers_of_fire at 9:05 AM on October 26 [4 favorites]
posted by fingers_of_fire at 9:05 AM on October 26 [4 favorites]
I know exactly what the staff of the Post will do; I fear what Bezos will do. The optimistic perspective: I've heard no reports of Bezos interfering with the news side; his endorsement ban was on the editorial side. Pessimistic perspective: He hasn't interfered with the news side yet.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 11:29 AM on October 26 [2 favorites]
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 11:29 AM on October 26 [2 favorites]
It’s not even money, it’s power. Money is a source of power. Being integral to an authoritarian government is a source of power.
Each billionaire is betting that in the coming purges and reckonings they’re gonna among the ones that make it out ahead.
"Why are you doing it? How much better can you eat? What could you buy that you can't already afford?"
"The future, Mr. Gitts! The future!"
posted by non canadian guy at 1:05 PM on October 26 [1 favorite]
Each billionaire is betting that in the coming purges and reckonings they’re gonna among the ones that make it out ahead.
"Why are you doing it? How much better can you eat? What could you buy that you can't already afford?"
"The future, Mr. Gitts! The future!"
posted by non canadian guy at 1:05 PM on October 26 [1 favorite]
'Washington Post' columnists push back against non-endorsement decision
More than 1,600 people canceled digital subscriptions in the first three hours, according to internal exchanges reviewed by NPR.
When Trump was in office, he threatened to personally review Amazon’s submission to the Pentagon for a cloud computing contract worth $10 billion — out of frustration of the Post's coverage of him. The Defense Department instead awarded the contract to Microsoft, surprising outside industry analysts. It was later divvied up among four companies, including Amazon, after it filed a lawsuit.
On Friday, just hours after the Post's announcement to not endorse, The Associated Press reported that Trump met with executives of Bezos’s Blue Origin, which has a multibillion-dollar contract with NASA.
"The paper I've loved working at for 47 years is dying in darkness."
It has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to endorse Harris for president Isn’t this what a newspaper is supposed to do?
But if I were the paper, I would be a little embarrassed that it has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to make our presidential endorsement. I will spare you the suspense: I am endorsing Kamala Harris for president, because I like elections and want to keep having them.
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:15 PM on October 26 [19 favorites]
More than 1,600 people canceled digital subscriptions in the first three hours, according to internal exchanges reviewed by NPR.
When Trump was in office, he threatened to personally review Amazon’s submission to the Pentagon for a cloud computing contract worth $10 billion — out of frustration of the Post's coverage of him. The Defense Department instead awarded the contract to Microsoft, surprising outside industry analysts. It was later divvied up among four companies, including Amazon, after it filed a lawsuit.
On Friday, just hours after the Post's announcement to not endorse, The Associated Press reported that Trump met with executives of Bezos’s Blue Origin, which has a multibillion-dollar contract with NASA.
"The paper I've loved working at for 47 years is dying in darkness."
It has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to endorse Harris for president Isn’t this what a newspaper is supposed to do?
But if I were the paper, I would be a little embarrassed that it has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to make our presidential endorsement. I will spare you the suspense: I am endorsing Kamala Harris for president, because I like elections and want to keep having them.
posted by jenfullmoon at 4:15 PM on October 26 [19 favorites]
I'm late to this, and probably not the only one to say it, but: "Democracy dies" fits the masthead better. Thanks for doing your part to kill it, Washington Post.
I know this is about a feeble as it gets, but I was going to resubscribe this weekend, and now I am obviously not. This will not leave any billionaire quaking in his boots, but it's the least I can do.
posted by jokeefe at 7:19 PM on October 26 [1 favorite]
I know this is about a feeble as it gets, but I was going to resubscribe this weekend, and now I am obviously not. This will not leave any billionaire quaking in his boots, but it's the least I can do.
posted by jokeefe at 7:19 PM on October 26 [1 favorite]
I’m (barely) old enough to remember when the Post published Herblock on Watergate. Fuck Bezos.
posted by TedW at 7:32 PM on October 26 [1 favorite]
posted by TedW at 7:32 PM on October 26 [1 favorite]
More than 1,600 people canceled digital subscriptions in the first three hours
I guess a couple of them forgot to post about it in this thread.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 9:32 PM on October 26 [4 favorites]
I guess a couple of them forgot to post about it in this thread.
posted by paper chromatographologist at 9:32 PM on October 26 [4 favorites]
>I've been extremely annoyed by its opinion section
Whenever I get to read a WSJ I'm really impressed by the quality fo the reporting, but man I'm not giving a penny to an organization that runs the opinion pieces it does.
Same thing with the WaPo . . McMegan is more than sufficient to repulse me from all that
posted by torokunai at 10:05 PM on October 26
Whenever I get to read a WSJ I'm really impressed by the quality fo the reporting, but man I'm not giving a penny to an organization that runs the opinion pieces it does.
Same thing with the WaPo . . McMegan is more than sufficient to repulse me from all that
posted by torokunai at 10:05 PM on October 26
The Biden administration has been shipping arms to Israel for the last one year. Why do you think that endorsing (either--added here to cover my ass) genocide supporters is a sign of democracy?
posted by Didnt_do_enough at 11:16 PM on October 26 [2 favorites]
posted by Didnt_do_enough at 11:16 PM on October 26 [2 favorites]
It has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to endorse Harris for president ~ Alexandra Petri (archived)
Roots are important, of course. As recently as the 1970s, The Post did not endorse a candidate for president. As recently as centuries ago, there was no Post and the country had a king! Go even further back, and the entire continent of North America was totally uninhabitable, and we were all spineless creatures who lived in the ocean, and certainly there were no Post subscribers.
posted by rory at 2:12 AM on October 27 [5 favorites]
Roots are important, of course. As recently as the 1970s, The Post did not endorse a candidate for president. As recently as centuries ago, there was no Post and the country had a king! Go even further back, and the entire continent of North America was totally uninhabitable, and we were all spineless creatures who lived in the ocean, and certainly there were no Post subscribers.
posted by rory at 2:12 AM on October 27 [5 favorites]
Whoops—missed that jenfullmoon had posted a link to that. But I did want to highlight that excellent line...
posted by rory at 2:45 AM on October 27 [1 favorite]
posted by rory at 2:45 AM on October 27 [1 favorite]
paper chromatographologist : I guess a couple of them forgot to post about it in this thread.
I got so carried away, I even canceled my subscription to Highlights for Children. That’s that neutrality gets you, Goofus and Gallant!
posted by dr_dank at 4:51 AM on October 27 [5 favorites]
I got so carried away, I even canceled my subscription to Highlights for Children. That’s that neutrality gets you, Goofus and Gallant!
posted by dr_dank at 4:51 AM on October 27 [5 favorites]
The Biden administration has been shipping arms to Israel for the last one year. Why do you think that endorsing (either--added here to cover my ass) genocide supporters is a sign of democracy?
I would offer the counterpoint that (a) if the Washington Post wanted to take a firm moral stand against the genocide in Israel, they could find more effective ways to do it than by withholding their endorsement for both candidates without mentioning said moral stance, either in their justification for such withholding or anywhere else in their newspaper, and (b) although the genocide in Israel is a significant event in the world at present, it is not necessarily the sole or primary element of every single political decision made in America, and is thus not always a useful lens for analysis thereof.
posted by jackbishop at 7:13 AM on October 27 [8 favorites]
I would offer the counterpoint that (a) if the Washington Post wanted to take a firm moral stand against the genocide in Israel, they could find more effective ways to do it than by withholding their endorsement for both candidates without mentioning said moral stance, either in their justification for such withholding or anywhere else in their newspaper, and (b) although the genocide in Israel is a significant event in the world at present, it is not necessarily the sole or primary element of every single political decision made in America, and is thus not always a useful lens for analysis thereof.
posted by jackbishop at 7:13 AM on October 27 [8 favorites]
at this point in my life – in my late 50s – I don't need "news" aka scandal du jour; exponentially so should things not break well this year...
(I prefer reading in the form of nonfiction books, not junk news; I do spend time on YouTube but haven't bent the algorithm to favor solid progressive-ish content creators yet, people like Dean Baker)
posted by torokunai at 12:06 PM on October 27 [1 favorite]
(I prefer reading in the form of nonfiction books, not junk news; I do spend time on YouTube but haven't bent the algorithm to favor solid progressive-ish content creators yet, people like Dean Baker)
posted by torokunai at 12:06 PM on October 27 [1 favorite]
given that Palestinian groups have reluctantly endorsed Harris as the least worst choice, I think refusing to consider endorsing a candidate "in solidarity" is probably not actually about the people you are supposedly acting in the name of
but also there's the second-order effects to consider: Harris is staunchly pro-choice. If the abortion question is settled, and America decides that the anti-abortion lobby is morally heinous, it'll break the back of the evangelical Christian churches in the same way that losing to the civil rights movement broke them (which is why they pivoted and adopted abortion as their new moral crusade).
Evangelical Christians are some of Israel's biggest supporters, and they overwhelmingly approve of the Palestinian genocide, and they have far more influence in America than American Jews. It's one of the reasons why Netanyahu's far-right government has such power; he's propped up by far-right Americans, and chooses to ignore that they do so because they want Israel destroyed at a later date to bring about the Rapture.
It's not a first-order effect, sure, but the core insight behind solidarity is that these struggles are all connected in ways we don't always understand.
posted by Merus at 7:45 PM on October 27 [10 favorites]
but also there's the second-order effects to consider: Harris is staunchly pro-choice. If the abortion question is settled, and America decides that the anti-abortion lobby is morally heinous, it'll break the back of the evangelical Christian churches in the same way that losing to the civil rights movement broke them (which is why they pivoted and adopted abortion as their new moral crusade).
Evangelical Christians are some of Israel's biggest supporters, and they overwhelmingly approve of the Palestinian genocide, and they have far more influence in America than American Jews. It's one of the reasons why Netanyahu's far-right government has such power; he's propped up by far-right Americans, and chooses to ignore that they do so because they want Israel destroyed at a later date to bring about the Rapture.
It's not a first-order effect, sure, but the core insight behind solidarity is that these struggles are all connected in ways we don't always understand.
posted by Merus at 7:45 PM on October 27 [10 favorites]
Evangelical Christians are some of Israel's biggest supporters, and they overwhelmingly approve of the Palestinian genocide, and they have far more influence in America than American Jews. It's one of the reasons why Netanyahu's far-right government has such power; he's propped up by far-right Americans, and chooses to ignore that they do so because they want Israel destroyed at a later date to bring about the Rapture.
This can't be emphasized enough. At the end of the day they're no friend to anybody in the region. Or, frankly, anywhere else.
posted by non canadian guy at 8:10 PM on October 27 [10 favorites]
This can't be emphasized enough. At the end of the day they're no friend to anybody in the region. Or, frankly, anywhere else.
posted by non canadian guy at 8:10 PM on October 27 [10 favorites]
WaPo links:
Some billionaires, CEOs hedge bets as Trump vows retribution
For The Post, more outrage from readers who say they’ve canceled
Some billionaires, CEOs hedge bets as Trump vows retribution
For The Post, more outrage from readers who say they’ve canceled
On Sunday, Michele Norris — the former NPR anchor and best-selling author who had been a Post reporter early in her career — became the second opinion contributor at the newspaper to resign in protest, following Friday’s resignation by contributing editor and columnist Robert Kagan.Why I’m not quitting the Post
“Canceling a newspaper subscription helps politicians who don’t want oversight, does nothing to hurt the billionaires who own the newspapers and make decisions with which you may disagree, and will result in fewer journalists trying to hold the powerful to account,” CNN anchor Jake Tapper wrote on X.
Boycotting the newspaper won’t hurt Bezos, whose fortune comes not from Post subscribers but from Amazon Prime members and Whole Foods shoppers. His ownership and subsidization of The Post is just pocket change to him. And if readers want to strike a blow for democracy, they’d achieve more by knocking on doors and making calls for Harris for the next eight days. But boycotting The Post will hurt my colleagues and me. We lost $77 million last year, which required a(nother) round of staff cuts through buyouts. The more cancellations there are, the more jobs will be lost, and the less good journalism there will be.posted by jenfullmoon at 7:52 AM on October 28 [2 favorites]
If this turns out to be the beginning of a crackdown on our journalistic integrity — if journalists are ordered to pull their punches, called off sensitive stories or fired for doing their jobs — my colleagues and I will be leading the calls for Post readers to cancel their subscriptions, and we’ll be resigning en masse.
Compared to them, I’m just a hack who keeps howling into the wind about MAGA attacks on our democratic norms. But for the past nine years, I’ve been labeling Trump a racist and a fascist, adding more evidence each week — and not once have I been stifled. I’ve never even met nor spoken to Bezos.
The moment I’m told I can no longer report the truth will be the moment to find other work. Until then, I’ll keep writing. I hope you’ll keep reading.
you can't unconvince me that the weekly National Enquirer hit piece covers on Clinton didn't swing the election.
It is maybe worth emphasizing that the Philadelphia Inquirer is not the same publication as the National Enquirer.
posted by nickmark at 9:00 AM on October 28 [1 favorite]
It is maybe worth emphasizing that the Philadelphia Inquirer is not the same publication as the National Enquirer.
posted by nickmark at 9:00 AM on October 28 [1 favorite]
The Post's news coverage--or at least the editorial framing of the news coverage--has absolutely taken a step back this cycle. I disagree with claims that the editor-in-chief/owner decisions are isolated to the editorial page, although I agree with the importance of supporting good journalists. It's tough.
Phillip Bump and Aaron Blake are still imperfect but well above average at their analysis beat, and Glen Kessler has always been horrible as a fact checker. But a lot of the headlines have taken a both sides and horse-race coverage slant that can be pretty ridiculous, which is something the Post was avoiding (especially compared to NPR or the NYT) previously.
The piece that was the last straw for me was a report on RFK as potential health care czar that was spun as intriguing experts for the nutrition-based rhetoric part of it, as opposed to highlighting the dangerous wackiness of a woo anti-vax testosterone-injecting kook. Similarly, there was a classic "Trump's brashness grabs spotlight as Harris reacts" style headline, which is one of those completely self-fulfilling prophecy statements. Shine a spotlight on Trump and then report he has the spotlight. You could also frame exactly the same facts on the trail by saying Harris stays on the attack while Trump's incoherence worries his advisors.
posted by mark k at 1:22 PM on October 28 [4 favorites]
Phillip Bump and Aaron Blake are still imperfect but well above average at their analysis beat, and Glen Kessler has always been horrible as a fact checker. But a lot of the headlines have taken a both sides and horse-race coverage slant that can be pretty ridiculous, which is something the Post was avoiding (especially compared to NPR or the NYT) previously.
The piece that was the last straw for me was a report on RFK as potential health care czar that was spun as intriguing experts for the nutrition-based rhetoric part of it, as opposed to highlighting the dangerous wackiness of a woo anti-vax testosterone-injecting kook. Similarly, there was a classic "Trump's brashness grabs spotlight as Harris reacts" style headline, which is one of those completely self-fulfilling prophecy statements. Shine a spotlight on Trump and then report he has the spotlight. You could also frame exactly the same facts on the trail by saying Harris stays on the attack while Trump's incoherence worries his advisors.
posted by mark k at 1:22 PM on October 28 [4 favorites]
I'll be loyal to the Post to the end because, despite their shortcomings, they produce a shit-ton of good journalism, much of which wouldn't see the light of day if they didn't do it. And their DC-area coverage, though a sad echo of what it used to be, is still among the strongest, if not the strongest, DC news organization.
On the other hand: "The Washington Post has been rocked by a tidal wave of cancellations from digital subscribers and a series of resignations from columnists, as the paper grapples with the fallout of owner Jeff Bezos’s decision ... More than 200,000 people had canceled their digital subscriptions by midday Monday, ... about 8% of the paper’s paid circulation ..."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:28 PM on October 28 [2 favorites]
On the other hand: "The Washington Post has been rocked by a tidal wave of cancellations from digital subscribers and a series of resignations from columnists, as the paper grapples with the fallout of owner Jeff Bezos’s decision ... More than 200,000 people had canceled their digital subscriptions by midday Monday, ... about 8% of the paper’s paid circulation ..."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 1:28 PM on October 28 [2 favorites]
Bezos explains. "I assure you that my views here are, in fact, principled..."
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 4:36 PM on October 28 [1 favorite]
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 4:36 PM on October 28 [1 favorite]
Bezos explains. "I assure you that my views here are, in fact, principled..."
Says Americans don’t trust the news media, no word on if he was wearing a hot dog suit when he wrote it
posted by azpenguin at 4:50 PM on October 28 [2 favorites]
Says Americans don’t trust the news media, no word on if he was wearing a hot dog suit when he wrote it
posted by azpenguin at 4:50 PM on October 28 [2 favorites]
Alright, everyone. Pack it up, we can all go home now. We've got confirmation -- from Bezos himself! -- that his views are principled. Repeat: his views are principled. No cause for worry or alarm, for his views are principled. Yes indeedy, principled is how I would describe his views. If you could sum up Bezos' views in one word, that word would be "principled". "No views more principled than his", I dare say.
posted by mhum at 7:57 PM on October 28 [1 favorite]
posted by mhum at 7:57 PM on October 28 [1 favorite]
Lawful Evil is principled. It's just that those principles are evil. Not that I think Bezos is lawful.
posted by Mitheral at 10:38 PM on October 28 [1 favorite]
posted by Mitheral at 10:38 PM on October 28 [1 favorite]
If you eat the iguana with the provided iguana fork, that's the Lawful Evil.
With your hands, Neutral Evil.
Just bite it with your fangs, Chaotic.
Bezosdaemon NE evidently
posted by away for regrooving at 12:47 AM on October 29
With your hands, Neutral Evil.
Just bite it with your fangs, Chaotic.
Bezosdaemon NE evidently
posted by away for regrooving at 12:47 AM on October 29
One potential reason for Bezos to spike the Washington Post's endorsement -- Boeing Might Be Quitting Space With A Potential Division Sale To Jeff Bezos:
Kelly Ortberg, who took over as Boeing CEO in August, said he was weighing asset sales and looking to jettison problematic programs. Beyond the core commercial and defense businesses, he said, most everything is on the table.posted by autopilot at 5:47 AM on October 29
Ortberg also confirmed that Boeing is in discussions with Blue Origin, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos’ private space company, for a potential sale of its space division. Both companies are NASA contractors for the Artemis program and collaborate with rocket development. The sale would make Blue Origin a more competitive rival to SpaceX overnight.
Non-WaPo links:
The Washington Post lost 200K subscribers after dumping their Harris endorsement
Jeff Bezos tries & fails to explain why he killed WaPo’s presidential endorsement
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:58 AM on October 29
The Washington Post lost 200K subscribers after dumping their Harris endorsement
Jeff Bezos tries & fails to explain why he killed WaPo’s presidential endorsement
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:58 AM on October 29
WaPo links:
Bezos was within his rights to screw this up: Bossing around editorial boards is the province of a newspaper owner.
The true roots of The Post’s endorsement policy: Even when The Post did not endorse presidential candidates, the paper made clear what it thought.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:15 AM on October 29 [2 favorites]
Bezos was within his rights to screw this up: Bossing around editorial boards is the province of a newspaper owner.
Two columnists have left The Post, and editorial writers David E. Hoffman and Molly Roberts have both stepped down from their positions on the Editorial Board. “I find it untenable and unconscionable that we have lost our voice,” wrote Hoffman in a letter to David Shipley, who leads the paper’s Opinions section. The turmoil here on K Street is a slow-moving plume, in part because many staffers didn’t foresee this turn of events, myself very much included. In my Oct. 14 media chat, I received a question from D.C. activist and author Peter Rosenstein: Why hasn’t The Post made a presidential endorsement? My response obsessed over the Editorial Board’s likely considerations in timing the piece for maximum impact, never considering the absurd possibility that the endorsement wouldn’t happen.Our current owner has emblazoned “Democracy Dies in Darkness” on the front page of every edition of The Washington Post. With this decision, those words now stand as an indictment of ourselves.
A lot of people would have forgotten about the Harris endorsement slated to run in the newspaper; few will forget about the decision not to publish it.
Bezos is fashioning a third model: years and years of exemplary statesmanlike deference and patience, punctuated by an editorially violent and destabilizing fiat. Hey, it’s his paper.
The true roots of The Post’s endorsement policy: Even when The Post did not endorse presidential candidates, the paper made clear what it thought.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:15 AM on October 29 [2 favorites]
USA Today and other Gannett papers will not endorse a presidential candidate:
“None of the USA TODAY Network publications are endorsing in presidential or national races,” a spokesperson for USA Today, Lark-Marie Antón, said in an email to The Hill on Mondayposted by autopilot at 8:22 AM on October 29 [2 favorites]
> I know exactly what the staff of the Post will do; I fear what Bezos will do.
I actually do think this is the wrong way around. From all accounts, Bezos overrode the editorial staff's plan, and Will Lewis, the publisher of the Post, argued tooth and nail with him and then decided not to publish it.
Jeff Bezos is not the publisher of the newspaper, he's the owner. Lewis's job in this situation was to publish the paper's opinion and, maybe, get fired. The rest of the staff have a leg to stand on, but the publisher of the paper is the end of the line for editorial positions, or else they're not doing their job. If Bezos had come to him at some other time (say next month or 47 months ago) and said "this paper is going to stop issuing political endorsements", that wouldn't be improper (despite my opinion on it as a decision). But this was someone who wasn't part of the editorial staff making editorial decisions, and the publisher's job includes not letting that happen, because it destroys their legitimacy on other editorial matters. In turn, that destroys the public's ability to evaluate the job the newsroom is doing.
Not that I expected much from Lewis anyway, but here we are.
posted by atbash at 1:50 PM on October 29 [4 favorites]
I actually do think this is the wrong way around. From all accounts, Bezos overrode the editorial staff's plan, and Will Lewis, the publisher of the Post, argued tooth and nail with him and then decided not to publish it.
Jeff Bezos is not the publisher of the newspaper, he's the owner. Lewis's job in this situation was to publish the paper's opinion and, maybe, get fired. The rest of the staff have a leg to stand on, but the publisher of the paper is the end of the line for editorial positions, or else they're not doing their job. If Bezos had come to him at some other time (say next month or 47 months ago) and said "this paper is going to stop issuing political endorsements", that wouldn't be improper (despite my opinion on it as a decision). But this was someone who wasn't part of the editorial staff making editorial decisions, and the publisher's job includes not letting that happen, because it destroys their legitimacy on other editorial matters. In turn, that destroys the public's ability to evaluate the job the newsroom is doing.
Not that I expected much from Lewis anyway, but here we are.
posted by atbash at 1:50 PM on October 29 [4 favorites]
Jeff Bezos is not the publisher of the newspaper, he's the owner. Lewis's job in this situation was to publish the paper's opinion and, maybe, get fired.
Yup. He'd never work another high-level editorial post for the rest of his life, but this would have been very respectable. Bezos would have been put in the position of publicly saying "I told them not to publish this endorsement" or to let it pass (then quietly firing and blacklisting Lewis some time after the election).
Jeff Bezos tries & fails to explain why he killed WaPo’s presidential endorsement
Bezos's 'principled' stand falls into the same fallacy that our society at large exists in right now: It is simply not possible to negotiate in good faith with semantic terrorists. His explanation is that the Press must remain diligently neutral in elections because the "trust and reputation" of the Press is in the toilet. This is the same argument constantly trotted out on why we need to remain "unbiased" and "air both sides", and many such other canards.
This line of thinking completely ignores the simple fact that the reason people on the political right no longer trust the Press is not because it has been biased, or even because it is perceived as biased. The political right no longer trusts anything outside of their information ecosystem because of a very intentional, sustained effort on the part of a reactionary movement dating back to the post-Civil Rights era intensified by a fascist demagogue. The lunacy of thinking "if the Press stays unscrupulously neutral in its reporting, trust will be restored" is laughable.
Of course, Bezos doesn't care one way or the other and is 100% just hedging his bets by working toward the Fuhrer in advance. This shit is just a smoke screen, and it works because the broader media has no tools to parse through it.
posted by Room 101 at 3:57 PM on October 29 [6 favorites]
Yup. He'd never work another high-level editorial post for the rest of his life, but this would have been very respectable. Bezos would have been put in the position of publicly saying "I told them not to publish this endorsement" or to let it pass (then quietly firing and blacklisting Lewis some time after the election).
Jeff Bezos tries & fails to explain why he killed WaPo’s presidential endorsement
Bezos's 'principled' stand falls into the same fallacy that our society at large exists in right now: It is simply not possible to negotiate in good faith with semantic terrorists. His explanation is that the Press must remain diligently neutral in elections because the "trust and reputation" of the Press is in the toilet. This is the same argument constantly trotted out on why we need to remain "unbiased" and "air both sides", and many such other canards.
This line of thinking completely ignores the simple fact that the reason people on the political right no longer trust the Press is not because it has been biased, or even because it is perceived as biased. The political right no longer trusts anything outside of their information ecosystem because of a very intentional, sustained effort on the part of a reactionary movement dating back to the post-Civil Rights era intensified by a fascist demagogue. The lunacy of thinking "if the Press stays unscrupulously neutral in its reporting, trust will be restored" is laughable.
Of course, Bezos doesn't care one way or the other and is 100% just hedging his bets by working toward the Fuhrer in advance. This shit is just a smoke screen, and it works because the broader media has no tools to parse through it.
posted by Room 101 at 3:57 PM on October 29 [6 favorites]
The political right no longer trusts anything outside of their information ecosystem because of a very intentional, sustained effort on the part of a reactionary movement dating back to the post-Civil Rights era intensified by a fascist demagogue.
And on top of that, non-conservative media consumers see the so-called "liberal media" bending over backward to distort the facts in favor of Republicans. We plead with the media to do a better job and they smirk, "if we get criticized from both sides we must be doing something right."
posted by Gelatin at 4:31 AM on October 30 [4 favorites]
And on top of that, non-conservative media consumers see the so-called "liberal media" bending over backward to distort the facts in favor of Republicans. We plead with the media to do a better job and they smirk, "if we get criticized from both sides we must be doing something right."
posted by Gelatin at 4:31 AM on October 30 [4 favorites]
Sadly, if subscribers cancelling their Post subscriptions kills the Washington Post it will be a loss for journalism and I'm not sure Bezos will care.
posted by Dalekdad at 10:44 AM on October 30 [2 favorites]
posted by Dalekdad at 10:44 AM on October 30 [2 favorites]
I am not going to cancel my Washington Post subscription. I learned long ago that most publishers are in it for the main chance and have their own private agendas that they occasionally foist upon the grunts below. But the main reason I’m not going to cancel it is that I—and you all—need to benefit from reporting like this horrible story from Nevada.
posted by TedW at 4:37 PM on October 30 [2 favorites]
posted by TedW at 4:37 PM on October 30 [2 favorites]
So a lot of those editors and journalists are just leaking everything to other publications, including the Washington Free Beacon. Someone recorded a meeting of Post editors and columnists and gave the recording to the Beacon.
Shipley told staffers that they were welcome to express their dissent at the decision, but that after they did so, they needed either to get on the team or resign. “Whatever you decide, I’m good with it,” he said. “What I really do want to impart is that you do not get stuck in the middle. Don’t be here if you don’t want to.” Yet even as he said this, editors at the meeting discussed circumventing Bezos’s decision by publishing an unauthorized endorsement of Kamala Harris.
Shipley said he “made very strenuous efforts, including a phone call I had with [Bezos] on Tuesday, to change his mind, but failed. And this was difficult.” Shipley said that his one-on-one phone call with the world’s second-richest man had lasted an hour, and that Bezos had given his consent for Shipley to describe the conversation to his staff.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:14 AM on October 31
Shipley told staffers that they were welcome to express their dissent at the decision, but that after they did so, they needed either to get on the team or resign. “Whatever you decide, I’m good with it,” he said. “What I really do want to impart is that you do not get stuck in the middle. Don’t be here if you don’t want to.” Yet even as he said this, editors at the meeting discussed circumventing Bezos’s decision by publishing an unauthorized endorsement of Kamala Harris.
Shipley said he “made very strenuous efforts, including a phone call I had with [Bezos] on Tuesday, to change his mind, but failed. And this was difficult.” Shipley said that his one-on-one phone call with the world’s second-richest man had lasted an hour, and that Bezos had given his consent for Shipley to describe the conversation to his staff.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:14 AM on October 31
Philosophy Tube: TikTok Vs Democracy
also btw...
TikTok's founder is now China's richest person. But the country's total number of billionaires has shrunk
posted by kliuless at 10:49 PM on October 31
also btw...
TikTok's founder is now China's richest person. But the country's total number of billionaires has shrunk
posted by kliuless at 10:49 PM on October 31
I didn't realize the Washington Post employed an opinion columnist who might somehow be offended at the plainly true claim that Trump has been "laying groundwork to potentially contest the election results." After being faced with such a claim on a WaPo livestream broadcast, he apparently stormed off in a huff, and has since resigned his position, according to this NYTimes article.
Looks like he's been writing for WaPo since 2017. In 2016, he'd apparently advocated -- a couple times, for two different reasons -- for replacing Trump on the ballot, but reversed course at least one of those times, and later, it seems, became a full-on Trump supporter/defender. Oh, and he was the Executive Director of the Nixon Presidential Library, and president/CEO of the Richard Nixon Foundation -- of all the ways he could spend his time. In the first of those positions he apparently tried to bar Bob Woodward (along with other "unfriendly" reporters) from the library, specifically calling Woodward "not a responsible journalist" (I guess the true Watergate scandal was all that irresponsible journalism), which makes his later hiring by the Washington Post, of all places, even more of a weird/ironic choice.
posted by nobody at 5:45 PM on November 1 [3 favorites]
Looks like he's been writing for WaPo since 2017. In 2016, he'd apparently advocated -- a couple times, for two different reasons -- for replacing Trump on the ballot, but reversed course at least one of those times, and later, it seems, became a full-on Trump supporter/defender. Oh, and he was the Executive Director of the Nixon Presidential Library, and president/CEO of the Richard Nixon Foundation -- of all the ways he could spend his time. In the first of those positions he apparently tried to bar Bob Woodward (along with other "unfriendly" reporters) from the library, specifically calling Woodward "not a responsible journalist" (I guess the true Watergate scandal was all that irresponsible journalism), which makes his later hiring by the Washington Post, of all places, even more of a weird/ironic choice.
posted by nobody at 5:45 PM on November 1 [3 favorites]
Meanwhile, the NYT brags about their subscriber count.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:11 AM on November 5
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:11 AM on November 5
« Older 22 tonnes of stolen cheese | Phil has left the building Newer »
posted by tclark at 12:51 PM on October 25 [33 favorites]