I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I think there's a valid argument that traditional media is struggling to hold the attention of modern readers, and trust in news organizations is at all-time lows.
On the other hand, there has always been a solid separation between the editorial page and the newsroom of every major paper, just look at WSJ. WSJ has not endorsed a presidential candidate since 1928, but it's no secret that their editorial board is robustly conservative. The Post is clearly a left of center publication and their editorial board has opinions that they should be free to share. In a world where Musk has turned Twitter into a pay-to-play MAGA playpen, I don't think there is anything wrong with a newspaper *opinion section* providing a clear, well-articulated endorsement of a candidate based on their merits.
Right. If this decision had been made and announced two years ago, no one cares. But according to published reports, the Editorial Board actually wrote up an endorsement and then the owner decided to spike it at the last minute- that's a big huge deal! This whole thing is just really poorly handled on Bezos part.
If the reports are true and 8% of their paid subscribers have canceled since Friday (1), Bezos really screwed up quite badly here. And you have the Editorial Page Editor David Shipley throwing Bezos directly under the bus in that same report (2) so he had to come out and offer this ham-handed justification, but it is just a sign of a dumb decision.
I just can't believe he decided that lying to a bunch of reporters was a good idea.
2: "As recently as last week, according to a person present, Shipley said he sought to talk Bezos out of his decision. Shipley added, 'I failed.'" Ibid.
Mr. Bezos has told others involved with The Post that he is interested in expanding The Post’s audience among conservatives, according to a person familiar with the matter. He has appointed Mr. Lewis — a chief executive who previously worked at the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal — and has informed Mr. Lewis that he wants more conservative writers on the opinion section, the person said. -- https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/business/media/washington-post-presidential-endorsement.html
He is making a serious play to capture an audience from the other half of the country. There is no way to do that without losing a painful share of his current reach.
The false story of the frog in the pot applies here: if you want to make a change like that it has to be slow and steady, at an imperceptible pace. Doing something big and obvious destroys your pivot. You've lost trust with your existing customer base with out actually getting anything from your new, intended customer base.
Again, announce this two years ago and it's a nothing burger and you could be working on that stated process (speaking for myself I don't think it likely to work, but it's at least a plan). Doing it now, in this way- after the editorial was already written- it's a big deal.
> You've lost trust with your existing customer base with out actually getting anything from your new, intended customer base.
You may not be aware of the new profound respect Bezos is getting from Musk and friends on X. Deep testaments to Bezos' character are suddenly flying freely around. Those devotions are invisible to most people who aren't on the right. But they make an impression on the audience that Bezos says he is after.
That may be true for Bezos himself- but do you think that respect and affirmation will trickle down to the Washington Post and net them new subscribers? I'm extremely skeptical. This is not the first time someone has tried this pivot, e.g. the Post's old stablemate Newsweek, and it's not an easy thing to do.
Bezos wants diverse opinions in the Washington Post op-ed section. He wants more than just progressive liberal viewpoints always being there, right at the top of the front page. Which I think is correct.
I usually read the New York Times, but these past few weeks it's become almost unbearable with its preachiness toward why you, idiot reader, need to vote Kamala.
Fine, but at least provide some kind of counterpoint. Newspapers lose their prestige as "reporting the truth" when everything they report on represents one world view.
We don't question the New York Post or Daily Kos because they're supposed to be biased. The problem comes from a supposedly "unbiased" news org becoming more and more biased. This doesn't just show up in the opinion section, it's also what stories newspapers decide to cover.
Are you suggesting that a newspaper making an endorsement is "malicious election interference", or that there was "malicious election interference" involved in them deciding not to publish the endorsement?
You’re saying that Bezos telling the editorial board to not endorse is election interference?
I’m really struggling to see how not doing something could ever qualify as interference.
The whole concept of journalists endorsing a candidate feels a lot closer to interference. Feels a bit sad that the editorial board can’t see that without being told by someone like Bezos.
> I don't think there is anything wrong with a newspaper opinion section providing a clear, well-articulated endorsement of a candidate based on their merits.
Yes and no, but mostly no. The context is the problem. There's not a high enough wall between news and op-ed. When op-ed does what is supposed to be option and that simply reflects the "journalism" on the news side of the house, then both sides lose.
Put another way, before these entities dole out endorsements they need to work 100x harder to regain trust. What good is an enforcement if no one trusts you? FFS, the reviews on Amazon are more trustworthy than these self-proclaimed journalists.
It would have been OK to decide to forbid endorsements a year earlier or just after the elections.
The timing is extremely suspicious. Both Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong (LA Times) pushed this decision through suddenly at almost the same time. I don't believe the reasons given for making the decision suddenly now.
Trump has promised revenge if he wins. They caved under pressure or pivoted. If Trump gets an AG that does exactly what he wants, he will go after his enemies in courts, and other means. Bezos and other billionaires cave in when they face bigger power. Mohammed bin Salman hacked his phone and then killed his employer. Bezos prevented the release of the Jamal Khashoggi document in Amazon Prime so as not to anger MBS.
Ostensibly, the LA Times owner's daughter claims that the decision not to endorse is tied to the Biden-Harris administrations stance on Gaza. Not sure whether to take that at face value or just a cop-out.
The same article notes that the newspaper itself and also the people who resigned from the paper over this say it has nothing to do with Gaza and his daughter was involved in none of the conversations about this.
My best guess is that she tried to use a brief spurt of interest in her family to get attention for a cause she was invested in, but since it was a lie no one else backed her up.
Bezos has clearly been taking steroids for a few years now, and I wonder if that's contributing to his apparent shift to the right. A similar thing seems to be happening with Zuckerberg, who, while not showing obvious signs of PED use, has shown signs of shifting right as he's been training MMA with UFC fighters.
What a stupid comment. Has it been shown that steroids push a shift to the right?
Also, he has access to the best trainers in the world, do you think that he needs to take steroids as much as a normal person does?
You can't dispute that he is one of the most intelligent persons on the last few decades, what's the sense of talking about steroids and political affiliation?
My point is that admiring someone, someone being financially successful, etc. is not grounds for real trust. Having a high public profile and an excess of media impressions doesn't mean they've actually earned trust.
These might all be general signals for someone who is trustworthy, but proxies are not the real thing.
> And meeting with Trump people about Blue Origin.
Blue Origin executives briefly met with Trump on the same day the non-endorsement was announced. But was that some kind of quid pro quo or was it just a coincidence? Did they or Trump know about WaPo’s non-endorsement at the time they arranged the meeting? Did it factor into either side’s decision to meet?
Blue Origin and WaPo are completely separate businesses with a common owner. I wouldn’t expect them to coordinate with each other, with rare exceptions-the most likely exception would be logistical issues with their common owner’s schedule/transportation/security/etc. I doubt Blue executives knew about the WaPo announcement beforehand, and if they’d already planned to meet with Trump that day, why would they have thought it a reason to change their plans? They’ve probably met with Harris too, or at least would like to if she is willing. It is in their best interest to hedge their bets to maximise the odds of a positive relationship with the White House no matter who wins.
> are people really this naive to think Bezos didn’t orchestrate all of this intentionally?
I think it is completely within the bounds of the reasonably possible that he did.
But I don’t think anyone has hard evidence he did, just suspicions. Sometimes, the devious answer is the correct one; other times, the real situation is more innocent and it just looks devious. Given the paucity of evidence, I think agnosticism is the most rational position.
Why is this flagged but the thread titled "Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris" with 1041 comments isn't? What am I missing?
>The only credible response to this would be, "Therefore, I'm going to sell The Post."
To whom? Any other individual or organization with sufficient assets to make the purchase would also have sufficient assets to complexify and be complexified by the Post.
There are so many official lies that you cant have big news outlets anymore. Almost everyone is tired of at least one of the lies but if you are honest about all of if the news outlet wont survive.
The time to withdraw from editorial recommendations was 2 years ago. Doing it at this stage in the electoral cycle is Comey on Hillary: The "I am not intervening" which is de-facto a massive intervention.
I don't think Bezos comes out of this very well frankly.
On the other hand, there has always been a solid separation between the editorial page and the newsroom of every major paper, just look at WSJ. WSJ has not endorsed a presidential candidate since 1928, but it's no secret that their editorial board is robustly conservative. The Post is clearly a left of center publication and their editorial board has opinions that they should be free to share. In a world where Musk has turned Twitter into a pay-to-play MAGA playpen, I don't think there is anything wrong with a newspaper *opinion section* providing a clear, well-articulated endorsement of a candidate based on their merits.