Billionaire cowardice led to The Washington Post and LA Times not endorsing

Once upon a time, after the editor decided that our newspaper would endorse a candidate that those of us on the editorial board did not prefer, a colleague circled the date on the calendar and joked that it was “A reminder that we worked for “Men’s Day.” .” We knew, even if readers did not know it, that newspaper endorsements do not always reflect a consensus or the majority opinion of their editorial writers.

I resign because I want to make it clear that I do not think it is right for us to remain silent.

Mariel garza, former editorial editor of the los angeles times

At the Los Angeles Times, the man in charge is Patrick Soon-Shiongthe billionaire doctor and founder of healthcare software company NantHealth, who spent 500 million dollars for the newspaper in 2018. Soon-Shiong’s decision to block the newspaper from endorsing California’s own Kamala Harris for president, as her board of directors reportedly planned to do, led to Donald Trump bragging and the newspaper’s editorial editor resigned. “I resign because I want to make it clear that it does not seem right to me that we remain silent.” Mariel Garza told Columbia Journalism Review. “In dangerous times, honest people must stand up. “That’s how I stand.” 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 newspaper, which bought in 2013 for $250 millionwill not endorse any presidential candidate this year. And it will not continue, according to its relatively new editor and CEO, Will Lewis. “The Washington Post will not endorse any presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election,” Lewis wrote on the newspaper’s website Friday. “We are returning to our roots of not supporting presidential candidates.” The newspaper, Lewis writes, did not support the presidential elections from 1960 to 1972, but did from 1976 to 2020.

The newspaper endorsed Joe Biden in 2020. He endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016.but almost three months earlier, Trump had declared “a unique threat to American democracy.” Like The Washington Post did, from 2008 to 2020, the LA Times twice endorsed Barack Obama and then Clinton and Biden. It is important to note that the LA Times endorsed Harris in 2014 when he was state attorney general and ran for re-election and then endorsed his successful bid for the United States Senate in 2016.

According to Garza, there is a lot at stake in this election, at least for people who are not billionaires. And since we know that the two newspapers have not spoken out in principle against the endorsement, we have to consider the possibilities that their leaders agree with Trump, or are terrified of him. Given the size and influence of these articles, neither of those possibilities is comforting. In X, Marty Baron, former executive editor of The Washington Post who was in charge when the newspaper adopted “Democracy dies in darkness” as a motto, he responded to Lewis’s article: “this is cowardicewith democracy as a victim.” He said Trump “will see this as an invitation to further intimidate” Bezos, calling it a “disturbing lack of character in an institution famous for bravery.”

According to a Washington Post article about the lack of support that cited two sources briefed on the events, “The decision not to publish was made by the owner of the Post… Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon“

It certainly seems that Soon-Shiong and Bezos are less concerned about their newspaper’s duty to the public and history and more concerned about what might happen to them if Trump wins and carries out his retaliation plans.

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

Of course, there are questions about how effective the backups are.

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

Of course, there are questions about how effective the backups are.

That didn’t help Clinton much, however. She lost. Not the popular vote, of course, but he still lost.

The surprising thing is that in 2020, there were almost as many newspapers that did not support (44) as the 47 who endorsed the eventual winnerBiden. (Trump received seven endorsements that time.) There are likely multiple reasons why smaller newspapers refuse to endorse, including public assumptions that endorsements govern news coverage and the anger such endorsements inevitably cause.

A newspaper subscriber is much more likely to cancel their subscription if the newspaper endorses the candidate they oppose than it is for someone who does not subscribe to become a reader because their candidate was endorsed. It’s 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 in 2020.David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Soon-Shiong posted a comment on X Wednesday that mischaracterizes what editorial boards do:

The Editorial Board had the opportunity to write a factual analysis of all of EACH candidate’s POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies during their tenure in the White House, and how these policies affected the nation. Additionally, the Board was asked to provide its understanding of the policies and plans enunciated by the candidates during this campaign and their potential effect on the nation over the next four years. This way, with this clear, nonpartisan information, our readers could decide who would be worthy of being president for the next four years. Rather than follow this path as suggested, the editorial board chose to remain silent and I accepted their decision.

An endorsement is not an analysis. It’s an opinion. Choose a candidate the same way readers will choose one. The path Soon-Shiong said he suggested is not a path that editorial writers and editors would take. Because editorial writers take sides.

That said, Garza told Columbia Journalism Review that She had not received such a 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 this years before”saving democracy”became a topic. Trump’s threat to democracy is even more obvious today.

And yet, the newspaper that tells us that “democracy dies in darkness” does not bother to fight for it.

Yeah, There may have been hell to pay if the paper had endorsed Harris and Trump had won and then turned on the press as he promised to do. But hell will affect the most vulnerable people the most. It is inexcusable that the ultra-rich who have bought into these huge, influential platforms seem to be more concerned about their own interests than the interests of the readers they serve.