The Washington Post Goes Dark
Oct. 27th, 2024 12:12 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ysabetwordsmithThe Washington Post, a formerly reliable newspaper, is owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos. For the first time in decades, the newspaper will not endorse a presidential candidate, because the rich man who owns it forbade them to endorse Kamala Harris. This is the kind of thing I mean when I say that America is not a democracy, but a plutocracy. It is not "freedom of the press."
Unsurprisingly many readers -- including my partner Doug -- have decided that their money is better spent elsewhere. After all, if he's censoring this piece that we know about, what else is he censoring or adulterating that we don't know about? If you have a subscription, you might want to reconsider that choice in light of this offense against journalism. Among my favorites is In These Times. (which is vigorously promoting Kamala Harris).
The masthead then and now.
This is not a fluke. Many other newpapers are suffering the same fate. They are stepping back from endorsements at a time when free and responsible press is most needed to counter propaganda and outright disinformation. Use your folding vote, folks. Support good journalism while we still have some.
Unsurprisingly many readers -- including my partner Doug -- have decided that their money is better spent elsewhere. After all, if he's censoring this piece that we know about, what else is he censoring or adulterating that we don't know about? If you have a subscription, you might want to reconsider that choice in light of this offense against journalism. Among my favorites is In These Times. (which is vigorously promoting Kamala Harris).
The masthead then and now.
This is not a fluke. Many other newpapers are suffering the same fate. They are stepping back from endorsements at a time when free and responsible press is most needed to counter propaganda and outright disinformation. Use your folding vote, folks. Support good journalism while we still have some.
(no subject)
Date: 2024-10-27 06:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2024-10-28 12:36 am (UTC)The information age has just made us more aware of it?
During the 1930s, there was propaganda in the US - making people believe that the Nazis were great and the Holocaust was a hoax. And anti-Japanese American propaganda.
In the 1800s through roughly 1950s and 60s, there was negative propaganda in the papers and in film and television about the Native Americans (then known as American Indians).
This has been going on for a very long time. It didn't just begin with the internet or the 2016 election. It was happening in the 2008 election, as well, and actually goes back all the way to the 1700s. The election between Jefferson and Adams in the 1800s, and the misinformation in the press was horrendous.
Thoughts
Date: 2024-10-28 01:16 am (UTC)Re: Thoughts
Date: 2024-10-28 02:34 am (UTC)Left-leaning publications have similar problems - they also only print their own political agenda, they aren't necessarily any better? Just have a different agenda, in that instead of censoring the left views, they censor the moderate or right views. While right wing censors the moderate/left views. Anyone is capable of censorship.
I've avoided Mother Jones and the Mary Sue - because they both have agendas, and aren't reliable.
To date - NY1 - Spectrum News is okay for the most part, it's local New York City news on television/cable. And I pick and choose what pops up on the internet, the New Yorker isn't too bad. BBC and PBS are still reliable, and the National Weather Center.
To determine what is reliable - determine what their agenda is, why they are publishing, who owns it, where the money is coming from, and whether the owner just wants a sound investment and further freedom of expression or has a specific political agenda and wants to further their own world view or financial portfolio.
I used to work in Library Reference Publishing back in the day - where I obtained the rights to content from various print publications to put in library reference databases, this involved reviewing the publications for their content, and obtaining secondary distribution rights. So I know a lot about it.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2024-10-29 05:41 pm (UTC)This is what he said in an op-ed: "newspapers have the daunting task of not only producing accurate news but having the public believe what they produce is the truth. Endorsing a political candidate for president creates the image of bias, a perception of "non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it's the right one."
Source: UPI News via MSN.
I also saw it on NY1 this morning, after they announced the Post had lost 200,000 subscribers.
Curious to know your thoughts on this, as well as anyone else's?
I've been internally debating it in my head off and on all day long. In theory - I kind of agree with him, and if this were an election between Colin Powell and Kamala Harris or even Niki Haley and Kamala Harris, then yes, I would agree in principle, the Washington Post should not endorse or show a definite bias.
On the other hand? It's not that type of election. This is an election between Kamala Harris and...a felon, con man, and individual up on charges of treason and threatening broad-scale fascism with his cult of personality (MAGNA followers). It's kind of like refusing to provide an endorsement in a race between Darth Vader and whomever is running against him.
It's not a normal election.
Also, why now? Historically newspapers have endorsed candidates.
OTOH, maybe he needs to take a stand now. Because the news shouldn't show a bias.
However, he's Jeff Bestos, a billionaire. A tech billionaire. And is part of the reason the news isn't reliable any longer. He and others like him are purchasing and controlling it.
And reporters are human, they'll have bias.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2024-10-30 02:31 am (UTC)He's talking out his ass, is what.
>> This is what he said in an op-ed: "newspapers have the daunting task of not only producing accurate news but having the public believe what they produce is the truth. <<
Well gee, you just screwed that to the wall, didn't you? To the tune of 200,000+ people dumping you because they no longer trust the reporting.
>> Endorsing a political candidate for president creates the image of bias, a perception of "non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it's the right one." <<
Doing so at this time, and specifically in the manner of "No, you can't endorse the opponent of the candidate I'm tied to," is dramatically biased and everyone noticed that.
>> Curious to know your thoughts on this, as well as anyone else's? <<
Okay, here's my background: Rhetoric major, Women's Studies minor. Professional wordsmith, including both writing and editing. So this is actually my field.
* When a new owner buys a publication, they can make changes. Minor changes are typical. Major ones always piss people off. Basically, it's considered okay to fine-tune things to your tastes, but if you buy something to shut it down or to turn it into something else entirely, then that's censorship and is wrong. It is especially bad if you take away the last or nearly last version of a thing so readers can't replace it -- that's incredibly destructive. But nobody is surprised if a buyer does make some changes immediately after purchase.
* All humans have some degree of bias, some much more than others. While it is not possible to remove all bias, it is possible to minimize that. Journalism talks a lot about this, both the mechanics of bias and the appearance of it.
-- It's actually fine for a publication to have a bias as long as they state it clearly. This is a Christian pub, a liberal pub, an African-American pub, whatever -- you know which viewpoint you're getting. There is nothing wrong with, say, a feminist magazine posting a list of female candidates and maybe also men who are more feminist-supporting than their opponents.
-- It's fine for a publication to focus on things other than politics. Sometimes a new buyer drops political columns after purchase, and it's okay, as long as there are others for subscribers to switch to if they wish.
-- It's also fine if a publisher realizes that, over time, a given topic is not popular with readers so they just drop it. Most publications shift slowly over time.
-- In journalism, the leading ways to avoid bias are to print only or mostly facts, without interpretation; or to balance an opinion column with a pro/con framework. So for instance, you might get a conservative writer endorsing a Republican candidate and a liberal writer endorsing a Democrat, each explaining why they think their side is better. But as mentioned above, most publications do lean in some direction.
-- What's not okay is someone claiming to act against bias while performing a biased action, as in this case of blocking an endorsement right before a fraught election.
-- A legitimate exception: "Our journalists have been receiving death threats, so for the safety of all staff, we have decided to stop writing about politics. We are replacing the column inches with peacework." But that's not what happened here.
>> I would agree in principle, the Washington Post should not endorse or show a definite bias.<<
I think we need journalists to walk voters through the process of researching candidates and talking about why they endorse one over another. It's a useful experience and not one that everybody gets at home growing up. Not every publication has to do this, but we need a good variety. I wouldn't expect it from a cooking magazine or a local newspaper about cars or houses, but a publication that talks about politics a lot should throw its hat in the ring for elections. That can be either endorsing a candidate who matches the pub's viewpoint, or it can be a pro/con column in a pub that tries to cover many viewpoints.
>> On the other hand? It's not that type of election. This is an election between Kamala Harris and...a felon, con man, and individual up on charges of treason and threatening broad-scale fascism with his cult of personality (MAGNA followers). It's kind of like refusing to provide an endorsement in a race between Darth Vader and whomever is running against him. <<
Yeah. That's a problem.
>> Also, why now? Historically newspapers have endorsed candidates.<<
Exactly. They aren't obligated to do so, but when it is common -- especially when a given one has been doing this for decades -- readers come to rely on it.
Also, if you decide you don't want to be driving a car anymore, you pull over and get out. You don't jump out and leave the moving vehicle careening through traffic.
>> OTOH, maybe he needs to take a stand now. Because the news shouldn't show a bias. <<
Most news does show bias, because humans see the world mostly through their own experiences. What we want to avoid is letting that distort the truth. And elections are far more about opinions than about facts. You don't have to be competent to be in office; you just have to be popular.
In any case, what Bezos did has not made people think of the Washington Post as unbiased. It has made everyone think that he is diddling the news for his own benefit and that he supports Trump. A whole bunch of people have unsubscribed over this. So if "unbiased" was actually his goal -- who knows, maybe he is that socially inept -- then it failed spectacularly.
>>However, he's Jeff Bestos, a billionaire. A tech billionaire. And is part of the reason the news isn't reliable any longer. He and others like him are purchasing and controlling it.<<
Exactly.
>>And reporters are human, they'll have bias.<<
That's what opinion columns are for, and pro/con debate columns. With facts, you just have to make sure you got the details right. Interpretations get much murkier, so you just have to do the best you can and hope it's enough.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2024-10-30 05:46 pm (UTC)I'm still uncertain whether he is right in principle - in regards to whether a news publication should endorse a political candidate running for elected office. [I'm admittedly biased myself in this regard - in that I'm currently furious with Amazon and Bezos for other reasons, yet have a cousin who worked on his rocket and sings his praises (sigh), and think the Felonious Conman running for president should be sitting in a jail cell, not running for any elected office ever.]
To what degree does that inform journalistic integrity?
I'm interested in the philosophical/moral question not Bezos, and that's the one I've been debating.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2024-10-31 01:23 am (UTC)Well, it depends on the publication. Political endorsements are appropriate for some but not all publications.
Is it a publication that does not customarily talk about politics and its main theme(s) also has little or nothing to do with politics? If so, then political endorsement is overreaching and possibly suspicious (e.g. someone might be using this as a vehicle for personal preferences just because they can).
Is it a publication that is all about politics or regularly discusses politics? If so, an endorsement is appropriate because that is a type of political writing. Ideally, professional journalists will show readers how to make a rational choice among candidates.
--> Does the publication have a dedicated viewpoint (e.g. liberal, conservative, labor)? If so, it should endorse candidates who match that viewpoint (presumably shared by most of its subscribers) and explain why.
--> Does the publication aim for neutral and unbiased reporting, or does it typically present both sides of a contentious issue? If so, then probably it should assign two or more journalists to argue in favor of different candidates, not even necessarily restricted to the two biggest parties.
It depends on what your employees are skilled at and interested in writing, what your readers are buying your publication for, and that tells you what kinds of things you should be featuring or not. Some people want to write and read about politics, including endorsements, and others really don't. You can choose to change your direction, but as Bezos just discovered, that will very likely mean also changing your readership whether you intended to do that or not. Readers had come to rely on the Washington Post for political news among other things -- "Democracy Dies in the Dark" -- and are now outraged at Bezos taking away something they expected to get. Violating reader expectations will predictably have bad results.
Now, if Bezos really thought it was wrong to endorse political candidates, he could've bought or started some other publication with a different focus and sought an audience who liked whatever that was. Instead, he bought one that people expected to furnish an endorsement and they felt cheated when he took it away. The loss is now up over 250,000 cancellations and past 10% of the subscribers. Since the guy is made of money, he doesn't have to care, but it was clearly a poor business choice in addition to political chicanery.
>> I'm admittedly biased myself in this regard - in that I'm currently furious with Amazon and Bezos for other reasons, yet have a cousin who worked on his rocket and sings his praises (sigh), <<
Just because he sucks at running a periodical doesn't necessarily mean he also sucks at making rockets. Many geeks who are great with technology are terrible with people.
>> and think the Felonious Conman running for president should be sitting in a jail cell, not running for any elected office ever.] <<
I think America needs better standards for leadership than literally just "whoever is most popular." Basic competence and sanity would be a good place to start. I'm more dubious of dragging in criminal record because the court system is so monstrously bigoted in so many ways, but perhaps something about violent crime (e.g. sexual assault) or large-scale fraud would be useful.
>> To what degree does that inform journalistic integrity? <<
Well, aside from the above, one of the keys to journalistic integrity is NOT having someone jostling your elbow while you work. A journalist's writing should be their own. And that's why several employees also quit. The same has happened at other publications embroiled in similar scandals. When a third of your editorial board jumps ship, that's a pretty strong indicator they think you're not practicing ethical journalism.
>> I'm interested in the philosophical/moral question not Bezos, and that's the one I've been debating. <<
Moral points include:
* Making a major policy change to a publication's political practices in the midst of a fraught election meets many people's standards of election tampering.
* Telling journalists that they can't publish something which their title has previously published meets many people's standards of censorship.
* Using your astronomical wealth to amplify your own opinions and suppress others' opinions meets many people's standards of classism.
Plus of course: what if everyone did this? We would not have political endorsements anymore, and many voters value them.
Some further reading about endorsements:
https://www.iq.harvard.edu/news/newspaper-endorsements-and-importance-candidate-quality-politics
https://www.fuelourdemocracy.com/articles/786-political-endorsements-work
https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/opinion/2022/11/01/why-a-newspapers-candidate-endorsement-benefits-the-entire-community/69608664007/
https://archive.ph/sb2KC
For my part, I am much more interested in facts, performance, and platform than in opinions or people. But I do take notice of some thematic endorsements. If a major union endorses a candidate, I expect that candidate supports worker rights. If a women's organization endorses a candidate, I expect that candidate believes women should be treated as full human beings. A newspaper probably endorses candidates who match the paper's theme if any, but probably shies away from those who attack freedom of the press. If I see lots of endorsements for a candidate from organizations I respect, then I consider that a good sign. But a surprising endorsement may make me think there's something I haven't tracked yet and I'm likely to go do more research.
And yes, for a long ballot where I only know a few of the candidates from previous observation, I do sometimes choose a trusted organization and check their list of recommendations. I can research 2-3 candidates but I don't want to do 2-3 dozen.
Yes ...
Date: 2024-10-28 12:58 am (UTC)