Until last Friday, I subscribed to two newspapers: the Washington Post and the Neue Zürcher Zeitung. As of Friday, I only subscribe to NZZ. I shared my cancellation on Facebook and was surprised by how many people in my network commented that they had done the same. This included people who almost never comment or even react to any of my posts. Clearly I was not the only one who needed to act on the Post’s eleventh hour decision not to endorse a presidential candidate in the US elections.
But I wondered: is this just my bubble? I was super curious to know how widespread this action had been. It turns out, quite widespread. Of WaPo’s approximately 2.5 million paying subscribers, over 200,000 cancelled their subscriptions by today, Monday.
As of an hour ago, Jeff Bezos posted an editorial on WaPo talking about how Americans don’t trust the media. Okay, but the 200,000+ people who cancelled their subscription on Friday presumably trusted WaPo enough to pay for it until last Friday. As noted by David Folkenflik at NPR, if a paper wants to stop endorsing political candidates, fine, but making that announcement less than two weeks before a presidential election is not a convincingly neutral stance. Do it a year or two out and few will raise major concerns. Do it at this point in time and lose a big chunk of your subscriber base, not because we didn’t trust you to provide good news coverage, but because what you did here was spineless.
Do head over to WaPo to read Alexandra Petri’s editorial on the matter. I’m sorry that by unsubscribing from the Post, I have cut my support of her work as well. If there is another way to support here, I’m happy to do it.
Oh, and please minimize or abandon altogether your use of Amazon. Let’s not feed this beast.
{ 48 comments }
M. 10.29.24 at 6:51 am
Just a side-note from Germany: Given the NZZ’s approach to German politics, it also deserve a protest cancellation. I wonder how the Swiss edition hides the work of their German politics editors so well that many Swiss readers are able to ignore it while the German right celebrates it as the new “Westfernsehen”.
Philipp Stehr 10.29.24 at 10:19 am
I cannot help but point out the irony in cancelling a WaPo subscription over their refusal to endorse a candidate while retaining one’s NZZ subscription. The NZZ has in the last couple of years gained notoriety for presenting a host of far-right views in their increasing coverage of political issues in Germany:
young people shouldn’t go on climate strike since “it’s not the natural climate that threatens the future of young people, but the political and social climate of present culture and an economy that is increasingly regulated and made dependent on the state” and “climate has always changed globally and it will not quickly collapse.” https://www.robert-nef.ch/2019/03/27/lernen-statt-streiken/
the meeting of the far-right AfD, officially on the topic of “remigration”, the forced expulsion of foreign nationals and German citizens, where far-right agitator Martin Sellner presented for an hour on his most recent book, wasn’t half as bad, says the owner of the hotel where it was hosted: https://www.nzz.ch/international/es-gab-keinen-masterplan-remigration-zu-besuch-im-potsdamer-landhaus-adlon-ld.1775950
German media is dominated by a politically Green mainstream that sees everything it does not like as “Nazis”: https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/es-gruent-in-den-redaktionen-der-deutschen-mainstream-medien-ld.1488781
lamenting that “Ur-Germans” will soon be a minority in their own country: https://archive.is/MZgxV [This term was changed after public outrage]
German universities are governed by a totalitarian rainbow culture: https://www.nzz.ch/feuilleton/deutsche-universitaeten-es-gilt-andere-meinungen-zu-ertragen-ld.1518955
racism against second-generation migrants is just as bad as racism against “native” Germans: https://www.nzz.ch/feuilleton/kartoffeln-almans-rassismus-nein-danke-es-sei-denn-es-geht-gegen-deutsche-ld.1403605
rescuing migrants in the mediterranean is a new form of German supremacism: https://www.nzz.ch/international/der-andere-blick-die-deutschen-waeren-gerne-moralweltmeister-ld.1493987
This strategy has made NZZ the far-right’s favourite mainstream medium and the NZZ seems to have fully leaned into their new-found fans and keeps churning out articles like these.
Of course, anyone can subscribe to and read whatever newspaper they like and the decision of the WaPo looks outrageous. But I cannot help but point out this irony when someone goes out on a public blog, advocating the cancellation of a WaPo subscription while maintaining a subscription to something like the NZZ.
Trader Joe 10.29.24 at 12:44 pm
WaPo is in the midst of a multi-year decline which I think involves far more than Bezos’ influence.
The reporting has gradually become more sensational and less substantive, the features have been dwindling and there are an assortment of other small things that individually sound like nits but add up to a product less worth of attention. I’ve switched to taking the NYT. Its more expensive, but at least you get something for the money.
The WSJ also continues to include excellent reporting if you can live with the decidedly conservative editorial bias. I find if you read the NYT and WSJ somewhere in the middle is probably where reality lives.
David A 10.29.24 at 1:35 pm
The broader importance of Bezos’ decision for US politics has been captured by Matt Stoller: https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/monopoly-round-up-jeff-bezos-and
jlowe 10.29.24 at 2:42 pm
The Washington Post lost me long ago. Haven’t given them a nickel for content in years. Cheers to archive.ph for the few occasions these days where WaPo has something worth reading. Today, the spouse and I discussed getting Amazon out of our supply chain. Means less convenience but convenience is so modern. And, as Bruno Latour said, we’ve never been so modern. Might be a lesson there but I don’t know.
Ghostshifter Runningbird 10.29.24 at 2:48 pm
If only the NYT felt the impact of people cancelling because they don’t trust it. We would all be better off if billionaires stopped buying newspapers to run them into the ground while destroying the paper’s reputation.
LFC 10.29.24 at 2:51 pm
While I agree that the timing of the WaPo’s decision not to endorse displayed spinelessness, I’m not going to cancel my WaPo subscription.
I would also point out, as a practical matter, that a WaPo endorsement in the presidential race was not going to sway votes one way or the other. (Ditto for the other major newspapers.)
Closet conservative 10.29.24 at 3:25 pm
My inner social circle isn’t very leftwing, so I don’t immediately understand why the Post choosing to not endorse a candidate would be viewed as scandalous and incite 200,000 cancelled subscriptions. I read the Petri editorial linked above, as well as an NPR piece on the story, and remain confused. I then read Bezos’ piece from this morning defending the decision and found it quite persuasive, at least initially (before someone in this comment section educates me!): https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/28/jeff-bezos-washington-post-trust/
Bezos’ core argument: Whether the Post is actually biased or not, it is perceived as (very) biased by a large proportion of the public, and endorsing presidential candidates reinforces that perception, all while not actually influencing the election (swing voters aren’t persuaded to vote for Kamala by a newspaper’s endorsement). I.e. if endorsing a candidate has only downsides and no upsides, common sense says don’t do it.
steven t johnson 10.29.24 at 4:00 pm
My reaction is a little different: Nationalize Amazon.
TF79 10.29.24 at 5:07 pm
@8 I think it boils down to two pieces:
1) The press is an important institution and pillar of democracy (e.g. Bill of Rights, the Post’s own tagline)
2) J6 was a uniquely disqualifying event for someone to serve as President
If you believe those two pieces, as I’m sure those 200k people do, then it’s not confusing at all that those people would go ahead and cancel their subscriptions. Now, if you don’t think the role of the press is all that important for democracy, or if you think J6 was just a party that got a little out of control and oopsie-doodle stormed the capitol, forced the sitting government to flee and tried to hang the vice-president, then presumably Wapo’s decision looks much less scandalous. Or in other words, cancelers are not upset about some general principle that newspapers must always endorse candidates or positions, but that in this very specific context, it was a problem, and goes hand-in-hand with the sort of “are attempted insurrections bad? Views differ” approach to journalism. That said, as a general principle, I don’t think papers needs to weigh in or endorse on every possible race or ballot issue (for reasons somewhat along the lines of what Bezos notes)
William S. Berry 10.29.24 at 6:49 pm
What stj said, a thousand percent.
Bob Michaelson 10.29.24 at 7:07 pm
I have minimized my use of Amazon for many years, only using it when I really wanted something that I couldn’t find from any other source, after a friend of mine, a bookseller and very small publisher told me about his experiences with it. Amazon started as a book retailer. My friend would get Amazon orders for books he published, and initially he’d fill them as he would with any other retailer’s orders, but he soon noticed that Amazon invariably delayed paying their bills for many months beyond the due date, and ignored dunning messages. He then started requiring prepayment for any Amazon orders, and eventually dropped selling to them entirely. So I’ve essentially always tried to “not feed this beast.”
Ebenezer Scrooge 10.29.24 at 7:35 pm
Closet@8: The issue is not that WaPo chose to avoid endorsements. The issue is that Jeff Bezos, for the first time in his ownership, interfered with WaPo editorial process in order to protect his business empire from the vengeance of Trump. Bezos was quite forthright about the potential conflict of interest, but asserted (very unconvincingly) that his decision was made solely on the merits.
(Btw, I agree with Bezos’ decision on the merits. Endorsements are dumb, except maybe for local races. But merits aren’t the issue.)
Not Trampis 10.29.24 at 9:32 pm
your major problem is your anger is towards Bezos not the WP. You are punishing the journalists at the WP not Bezos who incidentally does not write a very good op-ed.
Dark Rothko 10.29.24 at 9:33 pm
The only reason to read any newspaper, particularly a small town paper like the Post, is for the obituaries. This town is filled with some of the least self-aware and most self-important people on the planet and their obituaries can read like final edits to a Linkedin profile — still networking at The End. These are the people whose only regret is not spending more time at the office. You can tell because any reference to those left behind to mourn the family dinners missed, the vacations cancelled, and the children ignored while dad/mom was busy performing selflessly somewhere downtown as an Associate Assistant Under Secretary is relegated to the last sentence or two.
As for me, I scan the obituaries in the hope of seeing former bosses who have joined The Choir Invisible. I have seen three or four over the past few years and will admit to a certain satisfaction in seeing that justice has finally been served. I only wish that their online versions included a “Reply” button as I never recognize the person I worked for.
engels 10.29.24 at 11:06 pm
I don’t think nationalising Amazon would address many of its negative effects (not least the massacre of bookshops—imho a big step backward for civilisation), which are global ofc.
steven t johnson 10.30.24 at 12:20 am
engels@16 I would hope a nationalized Amazon would pass on payments to petty bourgeois bookshop/loan payment book owners quickly. My experience with independent book shops is largely limited to decades defunct newsstands, since I have to drive eighty miles to find one.
LFC 10.30.24 at 12:24 am
I find Dark Rothko’s comment @15 quite annoying. The population of the Wash D.C. metro area — i.e., Wash DC and its fairly close environs — is 5.5 million. That’s the area the Post most immediately serves, though it obviously has a natl and intl presence also. That’s not a small town, and the Post, contrary to Dark Rothko’s ridiculous characterization, is not a small town paper. (Maybe in 1950 the label would have been slightly less inaccurate.) Many, many of those 5.5 million people btw do not work for the federal govt (or for one of its contractors). (Bear in mind also that federal employment is not just, contrary to Dark Rothko’s insinuations, exploitative under secretaries of this that or the other.)
I’m sorry that Dark Rothko has not liked his or her bosses, but I find this comment singularly unilluminating.
William S. Berry 10.30.24 at 1:01 am
“ I don’t think nationalising Amazon would address many of its negative effects (not least the massacre of bookshops”
I think that one of those numberskull idiot savant billionaires owning one of the largest companies in the world (2nd after WM?) might be substantially negative all on its own.
both sides do it 10.30.24 at 1:39 am
Surprised no one has brought up yet that this is an almost hilariously explicit quid pro quo: Bezos and execs from his firm-to-get-federal-contracts-to-put-a-dick-in-the-sky Blue Origin met with Trump earlier in the day before the announcement not to endorse
Trump during his earlier admin also demanded a federal contract for servers be given to Microsoft rather than AWS because of negative coverage by the Post. (This was done in such a ham-fisted manner that the contract was overturned by the courts, and AWS eventually got a piece of that contract.)
Whether this is an example of “pre-capitulation” that is a dynamic of authoritarian regimes is up for debate, but what isn’t is that the Post in general and the demurring of endorsement specifically is a tool for Bezos to influence-peddle his other holdings
engels 10.30.24 at 2:27 am
Actually in cites I know petty bourgeois independent bookshops have sort of re-invented themselves to an extent, it’s the Borders, Blackwells and Tower Records I miss. I would gladly pay more (and own slightly fewer unread books) to bring back that part of 90s/2000s urban life. I think that can coexist with people who don’t live in cities being able to buy books mail order, just not quite so cheaply.
JoeInCO 10.30.24 at 6:26 am
I wish the OP had provided a clearer reason for cancelling. Let me be clear, if I was an editor I would have resigned because it was a clear breach of editorial independence that had been previously established. (As one comment noted, if this policy were instituted in 2022 there would have been few complaints)
IMHO, the only justifiable reason to cancel is to support the actions of those editors who did stand their ground and resign.
Cancelling because Jeff Bezos offended your sensibilities of how billionaires should act is hypocritical. It has long been clear what he is an you should not have subscribed in the first place — or at least not waited until this incident to cancel. I cancelled long ago because of Thiessen. And the lackluster web design. But I really don’t think Bezos is that bad compared to the Musk/Sacks/Thiel axis of apartheid evil. (Yes, Thiel spent formative years in South Africa). Nor do I think the WaPo is worse than the NY Times.
So, why not support The Guardian by “subscribing”? or other non-US english language newspapers — That one is a great resource because it is free to those who want to access an alternative news source. As an example… I was doing some work with an Indian Reservation in the US and the instructor at their school made heavy use of The Guardian as a news source and recommended it to her students.
TM 10.30.24 at 8:07 am
The NZZ, are you serious? The AFD newspaper? Gujer’s reactionary men’s club? I know this has been pointed out before but I’m … flabbergasted.
There are so many really deserving media projects that sorely need your subscription money.
Tm 10.30.24 at 8:14 am
Regarding the Wapo and LATimes, these developments should be seen not as individual power abuse but as the actions of an oligarchic class. The press nationally and internationally is increasingly controlled by an oligarchy of billionaires and they act their class interest. The liberal left needs to build up and strengthen independent media networks, or there will soon be no independent press left.
Tm 10.30.24 at 8:21 am
LFC: “as a practical matter, that a WaPo endorsement in the presidential race was not going to sway votes one way or the other.”
On the one hand, you are missing the point, which is whether it’s ok if oligarchic billionaires decide what journalists can publish (what do you think? is it ok or not?). On the other hand, if the endorsement doesn’t matter, why was it so important for Bezos to prevent it, risking enormous reputational damage and hundreds of thousands of cancellations?
The endorsement itself doesn’t matter but withholding it was a powerful statement. I feel there must be some sort of dialectic at work here.
Tm 10.30.24 at 8:41 am
Billionaires are not journalists
It’s not about presidential endorsements—it’s about the very future of our field.
https://www.thehandbasket.co/p/jeff-bezos-sucks
Bezos, Soon-Shiong, and Musk have not capitulated to Trump out of fear or cowardice, as many imagine. They’ve all made decisions to collude WITH Trump.
They didn’t buy Washington Post, LA Times, or Twitter for profit. They bought them for increased influence—and, if Trump wins, they’ll have it.
https://bsky.app/profile/leahmcelrath.bsky.social/post/3l7mabf6f7y2m
“Bezos and Soon-Shiong don’t care if they debase themselves. In fact, debasing themselves is the point. They have decided to lick Trump’s boots. If Trump is happy with the shine, why should they worry about what anyone else thinks?”
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.bsky.social/post/3l7lkbak3mg25
Ray Vinmad 10.30.24 at 11:21 am
I also cancelled my subscription. But we are paid out for the year.
What’s more egregious even than seeming to try to put fingers on the scales in a sketchy way by not endorsing is the overturning of the editorial decision by Bezos.
Bezos blocked the endorsement. He directly interfered.
If one cares about journalistic and editorial standards, and these don’t exist at a newspaper, this is a perfectly good reason to cancel a subscription.
People knew something was up when he hired the extremely sketchy Will Lewis.
https://www.wsiltv.com/news/consumer/washington-post-ceo-will-lewis-status-increasingly-untenable-as-newsgathering-controversies-mount/article_6f620c7b-7bb1-5b23-9ed5-b94378d109f2.html
I prefer the FT to the Post and NYT at this point but I wonder if this is because I prefer the reporting or because there is less fluff and some of the news is reported in a somewhat more straightforward way. It’s surprising how much of the Times is predictable culture war misinformation, or gooey lifestyle nonsense for the super rich, and how little international news they do.
The Guardian might be a better place to put your money but there is not much in the way of direct investigative journalism about other countries, The newspaper is no longer a way to find out what is happening in the world
Everyone who can afford to should subscribe to at least one real local paper. If you hate your local paper, subscribe to another one. Sad to say, I subscribed to the LA Times for many years even though I did not live in California. It was excellent! Not so anymore. Maybe it depends on how much you enjoy reading about cities in newspapers. Los Angeles is an interesting city.
I love reading all newspapers but especially local newspapers. When fewer papers were paywalled, it was hair-raising to read the comments in 2016–this is how I got the sense Trump might win. (Comments are now much more cluttered with trolls–though this was already happening, it’s gotten much worse.)
Losing the Post is gutting. I have been reading WAPO for 30 years. Seeing newspapers also lose their standards and/ or wither and/or die out is deeply unnerving. Is there any greater indication that democracy is failing?
Still, I find it puzzling that we can’t seem to have national newspapers which are more directly opposition to power. Latin American newspapers were often solidly on the case during times of authoritarian strife and violence. Is it just more expensive to do the news now?
And I wonder if there are ambitious city newspapers that will step into the breech? Tampa Bay Times anyone?
LFC 10.30.24 at 12:47 pm
TM
I pretty much agree with what Ebenezer Scrooge wrote @13. As Scrooge notes, what is primarily objectionable is Bezos’ (last- minute) interference in the editorial process, something Bezos had not done before.
wacko 10.30.24 at 2:11 pm
Yes, Bezos does have multi-billion contracts with the Pentagon, and his paper does (did?) look like a tool, employing “neocons” and “liberal interventionists” (same thing), for more-wars lobbying. Makes sense to me.
Judging by Robert Kagan’s resignation, the neocon community is unhappy. And hey, with both Kagan and Nuland unemployed, we may have a few more month before the end of the world, if we’re lucky. Great, if you ask me.
Chet Murthy 10.30.24 at 5:29 pm
I was prematurely anti-WaPo grin. I stopped my subscription soon after Marty Baron retired and Sally Buzbee took over, when I noticed to my immense frustration that the news pages were more and more polluted with what was clearly editorial content. Slanted articles galore. I’ve always hated Fred Hiatt with the heat of a thousand suns, but hey, he’s on the editorial page, and we know what his stable of apologists are. But when they overflowed onto and polluted the news pages, enough was enough.
That Jeffy can’t be bothered to allow WaPo to choose between democracy and tyranny, that he thinks that his fishwrap can stay stay neutral in that fight, is just the (ahem) cherry on top.
Eszter Hargittai 10.30.24 at 5:54 pm
For those wondering why the NZZ, it’s because I live in Zurich and want to subscribe to a local paper. I subscribe to its English language online edition.
Philipp Stehr – for someone who doesn’t think one should read the NZZ, you seem intimately familiar with what they write about.
I didn’t mention subscribing to Swissinfo, an important source of my CH-specific news, because it’s by the public Swiss Broadcasting Corporation, which every Swiss household already mandatorily supports through an annual fee so that is not an optional subscription, so to speak.
Others have addressed the points about why cancel now and why this matters (even though no, an endorsement likely doesn’t sway voters) so I won’t repeat those.
politicalfootball 10.30.24 at 6:02 pm
You are punishing the journalists at the WP
If the journalists at the WaPo are OK with working for an organization that pre-emptively knuckles under to Trump, that’s on them and on Bezos. I have no problem with their career choice, but I won’t subsidize it. (I canceled.)
Every now and then, it’s a good idea to remind a media giant that subscribers care about integrity pour encourager les Sulzbergers if nothing else.
And Bezos’ excuse — “We must sacrifice credibility to appear credible” — is despicable, and in any event only makes sense if you actually appear to be credible.
Maybe the next oligarch will think twice. Or maybe not. But I’m glad citizens are at least trying to preserve honest journalism.
engels 10.30.24 at 6:18 pm
Btw I suspect the bookshop wipeout was a classic instance of collective action failure. The majority (who could reach them) may well have preferred to have paid a bit more to keep them but expressing that choice as an individual consumer was probably futile. I remember reading that in France they were protected.
Tm 10.30.24 at 6:55 pm
There are other and I think better options than the NZZ for local coverage, from the Woz to tagesanzeiger, which is awful in a different way but not so openly right wing.
The editorial line of the NZZ is no secret and a frequent topic of media criticism. You may differ but this is not something we make up. There is a lot of evidence that Gujer is a nasty authoritarian culture warrior with fascist sympathies.
But maybe the English edition is different.
Eszter Hargittai 10.30.24 at 7:05 pm
I wasn’t going to go there, but the Tages Anzeiger is a nonstarter given its quality (to be clear, the lack thereof).
Not Trampis 10.30.24 at 9:43 pm
alas Bezos has not interfered with journalists at the WP nor has he insisted on a ‘murdoch’ line thus your logic is flawed.
In essence you are punishing yourself of good journalism because of one action.
Perhaps this is a yank thing?
Mike on the Internet 10.31.24 at 12:31 am
I’ve found the editorial sections of both the NYT and WaPo to often be yell-at-the-page-and-throw-something bad. They both suffer from a “counting, not weighing” approach to balance, and would shrink from declaring that triangles have three sides lest the two-sideists and quadrangletarians accuse them of bias. (In this metaphor, believing that triangles have two or four sides also just happens to dovetail with the interests of the fossil fuel industry and the National Association of Manufacturers).
Less metaphorically, both papers keep a stable of Trump apologists to chime in with sober, responsible counter-points like “maybe the senile 34-time felon meant something more nuanced when he said he’d nuke France and deport all the brown people”, or “the reason a third of our citizens are racist lunatics is because liberals keep disrespecting their racist lunacy”. The fact that some educated people think that reality lies between that and the WSJ is baffling.
Not Trampis 10.31.24 at 2:51 am
no-one but no-one has shown a scintilla of evidence that jourllaisi\ts at the WP are knuckling under to trump.
I hate to say it but the argument being mounted here is as silly as MAGA mounts!
Alex SL 10.31.24 at 3:17 am
One of the many problems with allowing the existence of billionaires is well illustrated by this episode: Bezos won’t care and won’t change, even if the newspaper were hypothetically to be deserted in protest by 99% of its readers. He would in that case have destroyed a newspaper and cost journalists their jobs, but he could just walk off and buy another newspaper, or maybe a social media network or several radio stations.
To put it in terms that sincere free market fanboys may understand (not that I believe many of those exist), your belief that markets produce good outcomes hinges on the assumption that companies have an incentive to satisfy customers through the requirement of profitability. But that incentive does not exist for a billionaire who can set effectively unlimited amounts of money on fire to further his ideology, go on an ego trip, or, in this case, support his other, nominally unrelated interests. His billions insulate him from market signals.
This means that a sincere free marketeer would have to realise that high wealth inequality produces socially destructive outcomes even if a free market would guarantee optimal outcomes under low inequality.
(Which isn’t the case either, of course, but that is a different matter. And again, at any rate there seem to be more alleged free marketeers around who actually want neo-feudalism than sincere free marketeers.)
J-D 10.31.24 at 5:30 am
Why?
Just because you love reading them is no reason why I should. I don’t suppose that you should read something just because I love it.
Tm 10.31.24 at 7:59 am
I don’t recommend it either. But I personally wouldn’t want my subscription money to indirectly support the AFD. Do you?
I canceled my NYT subscription because despite some really outstanding journalistic work, I couldn’t support their pro-Trump bias any more. It’s a difficult decision but I feel that we need to stop supporting irresponsible corporate media until something changes. Withholding support is the only pressure point we have and we need to use it, otherwise things will get worse and worse. We need to support independent journalistic projects (like the Woz here). They don’t have the news power of the big players, cannot have it, but what else can we do?
Tm 10.31.24 at 9:28 am
A good summary from Jeff Jarvis of how US corporate media have abdicated journalistic responsibility in covering Trump and the election:
“From sanewashing to false equivalence, many readers have had it with their favorite news publications. Editors would do well to listen.”
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/liberals-infuriated-media-cancel-subscription-editorial-endorsement-times-washington-post-jarvis.php
And some more truly damning evidence of this happening at the NYT in case anybody is still in denial:
https://bsky.app/profile/adamserwer.bsky.social/post/3l7s4jt2x272l
In better news:
“The Washington Post’s non-endorsement led to record-breaking weeks at other news orgs
The Philadelphia Inquirer had its best week for new subscriptions ever and The Guardian U.S. broke its single-day fundraising record — twice.”
https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/10/the-washington-posts-non-endorsement-led-to-record-breaking-weeks-at-other-news-orgs/
Inigo Howlett 11.04.24 at 5:30 pm
Due to years of overdependance on contractors, Bezos and Musk (Blue Horizon and SpaceX) now basically are the US space program.
The rumor I heard was that Trump visited with Bezos at a Blue Horizon facility the day before he stopped the endorsement- Bezos knows perfectly well a Harris government won’t do anything to his Blue Horizon contracts, but if he endorses Harris and Trump wins, the retrebution will be swift.
Like Russia in the 90s, a succession of oligarchs deciding its better to be close to the dictator than stripped of their assets for opposing him.
LFC 11.04.24 at 11:32 pm
Have no interest in defending Bezos’s decision or in particular its timing, but I think the rumor Inigo Howlett refers to @43 is probably not correct. According to what I read — perhaps in WaPo itself, don’t recall the source for sure — there was a meeting involving Blue Horizon execs, but Bezos was not aware of the meeting, he says. At any rate it’s unlikely, istm, that Bezos and Trump themselves met. Of course, Bezos’s motive for the decision could still be the one that Howlett and others have suggested.
Tm 11.05.24 at 11:02 am
LFC: “don’t recall the source for sure”
The source is Bezos himself. And maybe he’s telling the truth, maybe he isn’t, but does it matter? Nope. The conflict of interest doesn’t go away. Anyway the damning fact is that Bezos is now on the record as dictating what the newspaper can and can’t write. Also damning but in a different way is that his actions were really incompetent and have hurt the Wapo brand terribly.
In a different way, he did a useful job by calling so much attention to the dangers of oligarchy-owned media. We should probably be grateful for that but nowit’s our responsibility to draw consequences.
Lee A. Arnold 11.05.24 at 2:48 pm
Larger picture: Nationwide, newspapers losing readers and revenue, hoping to stanch the outflow:
https://www.axios.com/2024/11/05/presidential-election-newspaper-endorsements
But still, WaPo is intellectually incompetent. Decades in the decline, not a sudden development.
What Bezos should’ve said was, “We will have to stop endorsements, just print straight news, except for our personal columnists. But, we’ll start NEXT year. Donald J. Dumpsterfire poses such a threat of perfidy and rank incompetence that we are endorsing Harris. As a billionaire, I can get tax cuts and subsidies from Trump, and it would be easy for us billionaires to manipulate this bozo in the Oval, I don’t mind telling you.”
Robert Weston 11.05.24 at 7:41 pm
Lee Arnold @46.
“But still, WaPo is intellectually incompetent.”
By which you mean…? I have plenty of issues with the Post, to be sure, but can you elaborate?
Robert Weston 11.05.24 at 7:51 pm
J-D @40
“‘-Everyone who can afford to should subscribe to at least one real local paper.’
Why?”
I mean, the argument I’ve usually read in favor of local papers is that they promote democracy by holding officials accountable, reporting on local public health and environmental issues, promoting a feeling of community, things like that. Whether and to what extent they actually do these things is probably a topic of debate and maybe the commenter you were responding to could have clarified. But what I understood the comment to mean.
Comments on this entry are closed.