The Washington Post Goes Dark

[ysabetwordsmith]

The 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.

Comments

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> But after my experience with Amazon, I don't trust Bezos. He's a long term planner, and quite capable of hiding what he intends until it's time to act.<<

Yep.

>> So I figured that I couldn't trust any news organization he owned. <<

Logical.

>> This was years ago. Now, it seems, others are drawing similar conclusions.<<

Sometimes it sucks being right.

>> I don't know whether or not the current flurry of "the boss says not to endorse anyone" is a sign of an overall pattern of news distortion.<<

I see it connecting with many other instances.

>> Lots of people are afraid of what Trump might do to them.<<

Credible threat. But that means people need to stand up to him and minimize the damage he can do, not let a toddler run around with a blowtorch.

>> And as kengr already said, freedom of the press is freedom for the owners of the press. <<

No, freedom of the press is a pipeline issue. It must be free from publishers through editors and writers to distributors or carriers to your viewscreen or mailbox. If the entire pipeline is not protected, then leaks or kinks anywhere along it damage people's ability to understand what is happening in the world. A democracy relies on a well-informed populace. Without that, you're screwed.

>> (That's why media consolidation is such a big threat. With only a handful of owners, few viewpoints are represented.) <<

And that's why it's a pipeline issue. If five rich men decide what everyone is allowed to write or read or know, then democracy is fucked. It doesn't matter whether it's the government or the media owner censoring the content, what matters is that clear and comprehensive information is not coming out the end of the pipeline. And that's everybody's problem.

>> But this isn't that.<<

There's more than one way to ruin the press and the information stream. Like how both sewage and industrial chemicals can contaminate water. Different types or sources of censorship amount to the same bad outcome.

Re: Thoughts

[arlie]

I think it's important to distinguish between cowardice, gullibility, and malice. In this instance, Bezos is demonstrating cowardice - or possibly cunning, since the non-endorsement probably generated more attention than an actual endorsement would have done.

Actually, while I'm at it, we also need to distinguish people with real concerns, who are holding their noses and supporting Republicans, and Trump in particular, because they perceive their alternative as equally bad.

We aren't going to heal the divisions in this country while at the same time classing Them as entirely Evil; moreover, that's in itself a move straight from the fascist playbook.

An exercise for everyone: imagine why a reasonable person might be taking a position opposed to you. Better yet, find out why, if you can. (That can be difficult; both sides go a bit braindead, and simply repeat slogans when challenged. But the slogans often aren't their real reasons.)

--
That said, the information stream is indeed in bad shape. I don't know for sure that this is anything exceptional; lies and propaganda have always been with us, and history shows lots of examples of bad journalism. Maybe there was a better period in my youth; OTOH, maybe I was too naive to notice things now obvious to me.

Chatbots filling the zone with shit is probably the biggest single threat - we've already lost most news media, with the remnants very much consolidated. (Those 5 men are already in charge.) And of course, active government censorship in those countries that believe in such things.