The billionaires' cowardice left the Washington Post and LA Times without endorsements

Once upon a time, when the publisher decided that our paper would support a candidate we in the editorial team didn't like, a colleague circled the date on the calendar and joked that it was “a reminder that we work for Men's Day.” . .” We knew, even if readers didn't, that newspaper recommendations don't always reflect consensus or the majority opinion of their editors.

I am stepping down because I want to make it clear that I do not agree with us remaining silent.

Mariel Garza, former editorial editor for the Los Angeles Times

At the Los Angeles Times, the man in charge is Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire doctor and founder of health software company NantHealth, who spent $500 million on the newspaper in 2018. The election of Kamala Harris as president, which the board reportedly planned to do, led to Donald Trump cheering and the newspaper's editorial editor quitting. “I’m resigning because I want to make it clear that I don’t agree with us remaining silent,” Mariel Garza told the Columbia Journalism Review. “In dangerous times, honest people must stand up. This is how I stand up.” After Garza, two other members of the newspaper's editorial board resigned.

At the Washington Post, the man is the third richest man in the world, Amazon's Jeff Bezos. And his venerable newspaper, which he bought for $250 million in 2013, will not endorse a presidential candidate this year. And it won't continue like this, according to relatively new editor and managing director 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, namely the rejection of presidential candidates.” The newspaper, writes Lewis, did not participate in presidential elections from 1960 to 1972, but did from 1976 to 2020.

The newspaper supported Joe Biden in 2020. It supported Hillary Clinton in 2016, but had called Trump “a unique threat to American democracy” nearly three months earlier. Like the Washington Post, the LA Times endorsed Barack Obama twice, and then Clinton and Biden, from 2008 to 2020. Importantly, the LA Times endorsed Harris in 2014 when she ran for re-election as the state's attorney general, and then endorsed her successful run for U.S. Senate in 2016.

For Garza, there's a lot at stake in this election, at least for people who aren't billionaires. And we must consider the possibility that those in charge of these newspapers are OK with Trump—or afraid of him. Given the size and influence of these papers, none of these possibilities are reassuring. On , Trump will see this “as an invitation to further intimidate” Bezos, and he called it “disturbing spinelessness in an institution known for its courage.”

A Washington Post report on the non-endorsement, which cited two sources briefed on the events, said: “The decision not to publish was made by the Post's owner – Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.”

Apparently, Soon-Shiong and Bezos are less concerned about their newspaper's duty to the public and history than they are about what might happen to them if Trump wins and carries out his plans for retaliation.

As important as it is to save newspapers, an obvious downside to billionaire bailouts is their influence on those publications and their editorial pages. (Furthermore, these billionaire owners did not put an end to the layoffs of journalists or the takeover bids that plagued major publishers before being “rescued” by them.)

Admittedly, the question arises as to how effective recommendations are.

According to the American Presidency Project, which examined the country's 100 largest newspapers by circulation, in 2016, 57 newspapers (with a total circulation of 13,095,067) supported Clinton for president. Another three newspapers, with a total circulation of 3,243,140, urged their readers not to vote for Trump, and 26 disagreed. The Las Vegas Review-Journal and the Florida Times-Union (315,666 total copies) were the only two to support Trump.

Admittedly, the question arises as to how effective recommendations are.

However, that didn't help Clinton much. She lost. Of course not in the popular vote, but she still lost.

What is striking is that in 2020 there were almost as many newspapers that did not support this (44) as 47 that supported the eventual winner Biden. (Trump received seven endorsements at the time.) There are likely several reasons why smaller newspapers decline to endorse, including the public assumption that endorsements determine coverage and the anger that such endorsements inevitably provoke.

A newspaper subscriber is far more likely to cancel his subscription if the newspaper supports the candidate he opposed than for someone who does not subscribe to become a reader because his candidate was supported. It is a high-risk, high-reward venture. But it's still something newspapers do, and if other owners and publishers can take the risk, then billionaires certainly can too.

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 misrepresents the work of editorial teams:

The editorial board was given the opportunity to provide a factual analysis of each candidate's POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE policies during their tenure in the White House and how those policies impacted the nation. Additionally, the Board was asked to provide its understanding of the policies and plans advocated by the candidates during this campaign and their potential impact on the nation over the next four years. This allowed our readers to use this clear and impartial information to decide who would be worthy of being president for the next four years. Instead of taking this route as suggested, the editorial team decided to remain silent and I accepted their decision.

A recommendation is not an analysis. It's an opinion. It selects a candidate in the same way readers select one. The path suggested by Soon-Shiong is not a path that editors and editors would take. Because editors take sides.

However, Garza told the Columbia Journalism Review that she had received no such 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 calling Trump “a unique threat” to democracy. It should be noted that the newspaper was doing this years before “saving democracy” became an issue. Trump's threat to democracy is even more evident today.

And yet the newspaper that tells us that “democracy dies in the dark” can’t be bothered to fight for it.

Yes, all hell might have broken loose if the newspaper had supported Harris and Trump won and then turned against the press like he promised. But hell will befall more vulnerable people to a much greater extent. It is inexcusable that the super-rich who have bought these huge and influential platforms appear to be more interested in their own interests than in the interests of the readers they serve.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply