The news that the Washington Post and LA Times billionaire owners told their management not to endorse one of the presidential candidates caused a loud, primal media scream.
Both newspapers have described this 2024 Presidential election as one of the most consequential in history. Despite that, the paper’s owners told their editorial staff to ignore tradition and not express an opinion. Why? Fear and greed.
The lesson learned is that billionaire saviors of struggling newspapers do not have the same commitment to the ethos or moral nature that these newspapers were built on. They are scared. Trump, the would-be Mussolini, has embraced full-crazy and made it clear that if elected, he has an enemies hit list that these tech bros billionaires do not want to be on.
Newspapers have been under assault for decades, losing ad revenue and readership to digital alternatives. Many newspaper groups fear rocking the boat with a Presidential endorsement. LA Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, who made his fortune in healthcare, has a not-so-healthy newspaper business, and he likely does not want to alienate his conservative readership and advertisers with a Kamala Harris endorsement.
The real drama was at the Washington Post. Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Post, appears to have made a last-minute decision to protect his more valuable non-newspaper business interests. It has been reported that a Harris endorsement was drafted.
The decision was particularly stinging coming from a newspaper of record for many of us. Since the announcement that the Post would not endorse a Presidential candidate, several staffers have resigned or stepped down from the company’s Editorial Board. According to NPR, “more than 200,000 people had canceled their digital subscriptions by midday Monday, according to two people at the paper with knowledge of internal matters, representing about 8 percent of the paper’s paid circulation of 2.5 million subscribers.” The number is rising.
Jeff Bezos today differs from the person who bought the Post for $250 million from Donald Graham in 2013. During the last decade, Bezos stepped away from day-to-day management at Amazon and divorced Mackenzie Scott (formerly Bezos), making her the third wealthiest woman in the US.
The Bezos I admired has vanished, and the person we see in the media today on his superyacht has gone full muscled cartoon tech-bro, self-absorbed with body image, bodybuilding, and his curvy, arm candy girlfriend. He is living his version of La Dolce Vita, armed with the most F you money in history.
In my head, I keep hearing the Simon and Garfinkle melody and lyrics to Mrs Robinson: “Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?” followed by “Where have you gone, Jeff Bezos? Where have you gone, Katharine Graham and Ben Bradlee?
I remember when The Washington Post’s courageous Publisher and Executive Editor risked going to jail for defying Nixon’s threats during Watergate. What happened to Bezos, the business guru with the odd laugh, who, 30 years ago, started Amazon and the digital retail business industry and changed the world?
Bezos’ business empire includes monsters Amazon (2023 revenue $575B), AWS ($91B), and the privately held space company Blue Origin. The Washington Post is a nat—a stray media dog with a rich history he saved from extinction, which has become an annoyance. The calculation was simple. If the Post endorsed Kamala, and Trump wins, then Blue Origin, which lags way behind Space X (revenue $2B), would be shut out from government space contracts — end of story. Bezos denied that the Post’s recent endorsement policy decision was related to his other business interests. Yeh Right! Eights days before the election. If you believe that I have a rocket ship to sell you.
Bezos’ biggest tech bro competitor is Elon Musk, owner of X (formerly Twitter), Tesla, and wait for it… SpaceX. Elon will perform any manner of business fellatio to pleasure Trump, including barnstorming with the crazy (“They’re eating cats and dogs”) X-President and donating $120 million to the Pro-Trump America Super PAC. The PAC is sponsoring a voter turnout gimmick that awards a daily $1 million lottery prize to registered voters in battleground states who sign his petition supporting the 1st and 2nd Amendments. The program is currently under review by the DOJ. A Trump return to the White House would help Musk and SpaceX get the SEC, DOJ, and other government institutions off his back.
I do not know how much a Presidential editorial endorsement impacts an election. My guess is not much; it primarily contributes to helping build perceived momentum for the endorsed candidate. In the last Presidential election cycle, in 2020, Biden received 47 major newspaper endorsements (circulation 9.6 million), Trump received seven endorsements (circulation 863,000), and 44 newspapers did not endorse anyone (circulation 5.2 million).
I also do not know the best recourse if you want to punish these newspapers for their cowardice. Do you cancel your newspaper subscription in a town with few local news alternatives? Do you cancel your $140 Amazon Prime account?
The list of newspapers that do not endorse a presidential candidate is growing. It now includes the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today, Minnesota Star Tribune, and Tampa Bay Times, among others. The New York Times stands alone among national newspapers that still have a policy of picking a Presidential candidate.
Part of me wants to take a tranquilizer and wake up on Wednesday, November 6, to a new, hopefully better world without daily polls, non-stop fundraising texts, cable news network talking heads, and narcissistic billionaires who inspire fear and loathing.
Hugh Panero, a tech and media entrepreneur, was the founder and former CEO of XM Satellite Radio. He has worked with leading tech venture capital firms and was an adjunct media professor at George Washington University. He writes about Tech and Media and other stuff for the Spy.
Deirdre LaMotte says
Already, we’ve seen the two richest men in America kneel at the foot of an authoritarian leader; one (Musk) by choice, the other through threats to his businesses (because, apparently, being the 2nd richest person in the country isn’t enough).
It would also be naive to think that there aren’t leaders in the military establishment who would abandon their oath to the Constitution and carry out the wishes of a Supreme Commander with authoritarian powers (Michael Flynn is a perfect example) to move our country to the far right.
Trump has already said that he, “only wants to be a dictator for one day.” If he is elected, there will be protests. Will that be the day Trump is a dictator?
Will he call his group of young, armed followers to “assist” in bringing about order? Will he unleash a military taken over by right wing zealots?
Shame on you if you vote for Trump. You live with the repercussions should he win and I hope you are shunned.
Sam Willson says
‘I hope you are shunned’ to half of your community? What a wild and unhinged thing to say.
Deirdre LaMotte says
Why should they not? They are voting for a felon,
rapist who should have been impeached but was not by his coward Party. If one is voting for him because they love the cruelty or because they think
their tax cuts will be coming, both are signs of a
person who has serious integrity issues. They are
supporting the end of our democracy, something Trump
welcomes.
Of course people like that should be shunned. 150 years ago we went to war over issues that slit our nation.
The truth hurts.
Sam Willson says
Do you realize that those are the people who fight your fires, protect your neighborhood, keep your lights on, grow your food … talking to them to find out what they think rather than shunning them might be more helpful. Honestly it’s this attitude that got Trump elected in 2016.
Deirdre LaMotte says
Sorry. Not buying it. Anyone, rich or poor or in between should know right from wrong. Isn’t that the least we can expect of an electorate?
It is called human decency.
C.Herman Zweibel says
I guess Hugh is puzzled because the ownership of those newspapers finally recognized the fact that the minute they make political endorsements, their news organization strips itself of any perceived objectivity.
Political bias in the newspaper industry has resulted in a severe loss of subscribers, the shuttering of many papers and a serious distrust in the communities they serve. In short, by endorsing a candidate, they expedite their demise rapidly.
Now, if Hugh thought that both papers would endorse Donald Trump, I’d bet he wouldn’t be writing this. Since both papers are very left-leaning, he’s just irritated that his preferred presidential choice is so weak, two major papers don’t want to pin what’s left of their reputation on endorsing Kamala Harris.
Newspapers have nothing to gain with endorsements. They never have and it’s about time that they finally figured it out.
Robert Sommerlatte says
Strange argument since the reporting side of the house is separate from the Editorial side. Any position taken by the Editors is known to be opinion not news. Note the schism at the WSJ where the reporting side came out against the editorial side because their opinions did not reflect the facts reported by the news side. However the separation of News reporting and editorial opinions is hardly pristine. Sometimes both sides of the house lie. Notably at Fox where there was $780 million judgement against them for false reporting. The testimony was so damaging that it is amazing that anyone watches them. But yet many do. Caveat emptor.
Kevin H Beverly says
Endorsements result from a review of of collected facts and knowledge one accumulates about an individual or an issue.The political bias invades the space when we bend the knee and ignore the facts and accumulated data. If the assumption is that the both the Post and the Times were going to be shills for Ms Harris, then we miss the reason that we endorse any candidate or anything for that matter. An endorsement wouldn’t change my assessment of their journalism, which I find pretty mixed. These guys are half way to being vassal oligarchs and I am not shocked when they act the part. That said, seems a little chicken s*!# to me to endorse candidates for roughly 50 years, but then back down when one candidate is truly threatening to their business. They have clearly picked fights with Trump before, so why stop now? Kathryn Graham had balls during watergate. Wonder how Bezos would have responded to the pressure that she was under when the White House was trying to suppress the Watergate investigation. But then again, she didn’t own 10% of AWS, but Bezos might have folded anyway. I love the X-President double entendre (one meaning former president and the other being owned by Musk)
John Fischer says
Mr. Beverly finds the slant of political, economic and cultural “journalism” of the Washington Post to be “pretty mixed.” My goodness.
Linda Cades says
Thank you for a clear statement of exactly what happened and why to the Post’s endorsement of Kamala Harris which had already been drafted. The question for Post subscribers is what to do.
My husband and I have been Post subscribers for over 50 years. After a spirited discussion, we have decided to keep our Post subscription. Despite what Bezos ordered, the Post’s journalists are professionals who have devoted their lives to their work: telling the truth. Jeff Bezos has betrayed them for Trump, a loathsome excuse for a human being, to protect his vast billions. I agree with every condemnation that has been published of the Post’s decision. However, so do the Post’s journalists, 17 of whom protested publicly in the Post. I want to continue to support writers I count on to tell me the truth. Op-ed writer Dana Milbank has said that, going forward, if there is any hint that Bezos/Lewis are interfering with the independence journalists must have, he will resign. Were that to happen, I think many of his colleagues would follow him out the door.
While completely understanding the rage many subscribers feel, I hope at least some will reconsider and continue to support the Post. If you do, you are not supporting Bezos/Lewis. You are supporting the work writers you depend upon for the truth do every day. That work matters.
PS I did cancel my Amazon account. Other people, many of them our local business people, sell stuff. I hope others will forgo Amazon in favor of our local friends and neighbors and that our business community has the best holiday season in years.
Louise Perry says
I depend on bona fide media sources to provide fact-based reporting that I can trust. It also means that I trust their opinions. This is a sad day. What next?
THOMAS FANNON says
I suppose the Spy is proud to let its readers know exactly where it stands on the coming election! A very real problem this year is the poor quality of both candidates. Mr. Trump’s faults get very prominent coverage, yet half of Americans find Ms. Harris a lesser option, and these valid reasons are never discussed. Lack of simple competence, the inability to impact critical world events from our border to Russian and Chinese aggression to the Middle East, the coverup of Mr. Biden’s condition, Ms. Harris’s careful protection from the press, not to mention inflation and the spiraling cost of payments to the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned about 64 years ago! Many voters wonder who is really running the show in the DNC.
Editor says
Just a reminder this is an opinion piece by Hugh Panero not the Talbot Spy
Anne C Stalfort says
It’s baffling that anyone would think that a candidate for president who had been a District Attorney, Attorney General of our most populous state, US Senator, and Vice President was not qualified. In fact, she is the only candidate in recent history who has judicial, legislative, and executive experience. 21 years of government experience. This is what qualified looks like.
Donald Martin says
If Mr. Panero’s assessment of Mr Bezos reasons for denying his editorial board permission to make a political endorsement is correct what prevented Mr.Bezos from taking out an ad in the Washington Post endorsing Mr.Trump so as to protect his business interests? When has Mr. Bezos bent a proverbial knee to Mr.Trump previously? Why now? Isn’t this just a case of sour grapes?
Deirdre LaMotte says
Bezos and his Murdoch acolyte Lewis cannot tell the difference between truths and lies? Can’t distinguish between fascism and democracy? Find no fault in racism, sexism, or insurrectionists? Like being called “The enemy within”? Agree that those who gave their lives to save the world from people like Hitler and Trump are “suckers and losers”. Think convicted criminals should be presidents not imprisoned? That is “principle”?
Bezos has capitulated to a fascist to hedge his bets. Period.
Al DiCenso says
Sheer cowardice in the face of Trump’s bullying. The birth of fascism before our very eyes!
Reed Fadell 3 says
I am told that My president just called me garbage.
Could that be true?
Meg says
WAPO’s silence screams SPACE FORCE!
Reed Fawell 3 says
Mr. Panero opines that:
Despite that, the paper’s owners told their editorial staff to ignore tradition and not express an opinion. Why? Fear and greed.
The lesson learned is that billionaire saviors of struggling newspapers do not have the same commitment to the ethos or moral nature that these newspapers were built on. They are scared. Trump, the would-be Mussolini, has embraced full-crazy and made it clear that if elected, he has an enemies hit list that these tech bros billionaires do not want to be on …. Bezos’ biggest tech bro competitor is Elon Musk, owner of X (formerly Twitter), Tesla, and wait for it… SpaceX. Elon will perform any manner of business fellatio to pleasure Trump,….”
Mr. Bezos opines from an Oct. 28 Washington Post op-ed that:
“In the annual public surveys about trust and reputation, journalists and the media have regularly fallen near the very bottom, often just above Congress. But in this year’s Gallup poll, we have managed to fall below Congress. Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.
Let me give an analogy. Voting machines must meet two requirements. They must count the vote accurately, and people must believe they count the vote accurately. The second requirement is distinct from and just as important as the first. Likewise with newspapers. We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn’t see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose. Reality is an undefeated champion.
It would be easy to blame others for our long and continuing fall in credibility (and, therefore, decline in impact), but a victim mentality will not help. . . . Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. . . . What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. . . . Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one. Eugene Meyer, publisher of The Washington Post from 1933 to 1946, thought the same, and he was right. By itself, declining to endorse presidential candidates is not enough to move us very far up the trust scale, but it’s a meaningful step in the right direction.”
Based on the weight of objective evidence, I suggest the Mr. Bezos has the more persuasive case. And that his version of reality will prove it. Like a wise but firm father, he is giving his wayward child one last chance.
Meg Olmery says
Bezos’ silence screams Space Force!
Remember Trump’s new branch of the military? Those contracts worth a lot more to Bezos than The Washington Post or democracy.
Richard Lynch says
What a well written article. I agree with the points Mr Panero made. If we end up withTrump as President again, it will be terrible.
I don’t think that will happen so GO VOTE!