Billionaire cowardice led to defunding of The Washington Post, LA Times
8 mins read

Billionaire cowardice led to defunding of The Washington Post, LA Times

Kaneb0

Once upon a time, after the publisher decided that our paper would endorse a candidate that we on the editorial board did not prefer, a colleague circled the date on the calendar and joked that it was “Reminder That We Work for The Man Day.” We knew, even if the readers did not, that the magazine’s recommendations do not always reflect a consensus or the majority opinion of its editors.

I’m resigning because I want to make it clear that I’m not okay with us being silent.

Mariel Garza, former editor of the Los Angeles Times

At the Los Angeles Times is the man in charge Patrick Soon-Shiongthe billionaire physician and founder of healthcare software company NantHealth who spent $500 million for the magazine in 2018. Soon-Shiong’s decision to block the magazine from endorsing California’s own Kamala Harris for president, which its board reportedly planned to do, led to Donald Trump crows and the magazine’s editor quit. “I’m resigning because I want to make it clear that I’m not okay with us being silent.” Mariel Garza told the Columbia Journalism Review. “In dangerous times, honest people must stand up. That’s how I stand up.” Two more members of the newspaper’s editorial board resigned after Garza did.

At The Washington Post, the world’s third richest man, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, is The Man. And his venerable paper, which he bought in 2013 for $250 millionwill not support a presidential candidate this year. And will not go further, according to its relatively new publisher and managing director, Will Lewis. “The Washington Post will not endorse a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election,” Lewis wrote on the paper’s website Friday. “We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.” The newspaper, Lewis writes, did not endorse in presidential elections between 1960 and 1972, but did so from 1976 to 2020.

The newspaper endorsed Joe Biden in 2020. It supported Hillary Clinton in 2016but almost three months before that it had declared Trump “a unique threat to American democracy.” As The Washington Post did, from 2008 to 2020, the LA Times endorsed Barack Obama twice and then Clinton and Biden. Important, LA Times endorsed Harris in 2014 when she was the state’s attorney general who ran for re-election and then supported her successful 2016 US Senate run.

To Garza’s point, the stakes are high in this election, at least for people who aren’t billionaires. And knowing that the two papers haven’t decided on principled support, we have to consider the possibility that their editors are okay with Trump — or terrified of him. Given the size and influence of these newspapers, neither of these possibilities is comforting. The X, Marty Baron, a former executive editor of The Washington Post who was in charge when the paper adopted “Democracy dies in darkness” as its tagline, responded to Lewis’s post: “This is cowardicewith democracy as the victim.” He said Trump “will see this as an invitation to further intimidate” Bezos, and he called it “disturbing spinelessness at an institution known for courage.”

According to a Washington Post story about the non-approval that cited two sources briefed on the events, “The decision not to publish was made by The Post’s owners — Amazon founder Jeff Bezos“

Indeed, it seems that Soon-Shiong and Bezos are less concerned about their paper’s duty to the public and history and more concerned about what might happen to them if Trump wins and carry out their retaliation plans.

As important as it is to save newspapers, an obvious downside to billionaires coming to the rescue is their influence over those publications and their editorial pages. (On top of that, these have billionaire owners not put an end to the dismissals of journalists or takeover offers that plagued major publications before being “saved” by them.)

Of course, there are questions about how effective recommendations are.

According to the American Presidency Project, which looked at the nation’s top 100 newspapers by circulation, in 2016, 57 newspapers (with a combined circulation of 13,095,067) endorsed Clinton for president. Another three newspapers with a combined circulation of 3,243,140 urged their readers not to vote for Trump, and 26 did not support. The Las Vegas Review-Journal and The Florida Times-Union (combined circulation of 315,666) were the only two who supported Trump.

Of course, there are questions about how effective recommendations are.

Clinton did a little good, though. She lost. Not the popular vote, of course, but she still lost.

What is striking is that in 2020 there were almost as many of the papers that did not support (44) as 47 which approved the final winnerBiden. (Trump received seven endorsements that time.) There are likely several reasons why smaller papers refuse to endorse, including public assumptions that endorsements drive news coverage and the anger that such endorsements inevitably cause.

A newspaper subscriber is much more likely to cancel their subscription if the newspaper supports the candidate they oppose than a non-subscriber will become a reader because their candidate was endorsed. It is a high risk/no reward proposition. But it’s still something newspapers do, and if other owners and publishers can take the risks, then billionaires certainly can.

Patrick Soon-Shiong.
Patrick Soon-Shiong in San Francisco 2020.David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Soon-Shiong wrote a comment on X Wednesday that mischaracterizes what newsrooms do:

The Editorial Board was given the opportunity to produce a factual analysis of all the POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies of EACH candidate during their terms in the White House, and how those policies affected the nation. In addition, the board was asked to provide its understanding of the policies and plans presented by the candidates during this campaign and its potential effect on the nation over the next four years. That way, with this clear and partisan information side by side, our readers could decide who would be worthy of being president for the next four years. Instead of taking this route as suggested, the editors chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision.

A statement is not an analysis. It is an opinion. It chooses a candidate the same way readers choose one. The path Soon-Shiong said he proposed is not one that editorial writers and editors would take. Because editorial writers take sides.

That said, Garza told the Columbia Journalism Review she had received no such request from Soon-Shiong to write an analysis of the candidates.

In 2016, nearly three months before The Washington Post endorsed Clinton’s candidacy, it published an editorial identifying Trump as “a unique threat” to democracy. It should be noted that the newspaper did so years before “save democracy” became a theme. Trump’s threat to democracy is even more evident today.

And yet the newspaper that says “democracy dies in darkness” can’t be bothered to fight for it.

Yes, there may have been hell to pay if the paper had endorsed Harris and Trump won and then turned on the press as he has promised to do. But hell will be visited on more vulnerable people to a much greater degree. It is inexcusable that the ultra-rich who have bought these huge and influential platforms seem to be more interested in their own interests than the interests of the readers they serve.

Website https://carnevalestoricocivitonico.it

Related Posts