4 ms·

I know people who cancelled the subscription because they refused to endorse a candidate. I don't quite understand why, because refusing to endorse anyone is a

by atonse 9mo ago

I know people who cancelled the subscription because they refused to endorse a candidate. I don't quite understand why, because refusing to endorse anyone is a neutral step. I've always found newspaper endorsements to feel slimy. I'm not ascribing some kind of noble reason for them choosing not to endorse Harris, but their move to was to endorse _no one_.

nemomarx 9mo ago
I think when you've historically backed one party, changing that stance is seen as a political signal. And Bezos pretty immediately cozied up to trump so can you say they were wrong to think of it that way?
JumpCrisscross 9mo ago
> don't quite understand why, because refusing to endorse anyone is a neutral step Pulling the endorsement after it goes the wrong way isn’t neutral.
- atonse 9mo ago
  Having an endorsement isn’t normal either. We have somehow normalized the idea that newspapers openly state their preference for a candidate. I expect that from Fox News or MSNBC. But not the Washington Post. I’ve always found the idea of papers endorsing candidates so odd, Bezos or not.
tw04 9mo ago
Because the entire reason they "refused to endorse a candidate" was at the behest of Bezos because he's a greedy coward. The actual people working at the paper were quite clear and vocal about their support of one candidate. The downside to one candidate is that his playbook was literally bringing facism to America via "Project 2025". The downside to the other candidate was highlighted by being a black woman, and not being progressive enough I guess? That's not a difficult choice for anyone outside of the ruling class.
- acomjean 9mo ago
  Washington posts tag line was “Democracy dies in darkness”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Dies_in_Darkness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Dies_in_Darkness It might be still, I unsubscribed due to this nonsense. Went to the guardian.
justin66 9mo ago
You misunderstand what occurred. The paper prepared an endorsement and Bezos killed it. > they refused to endorse a candidate. > for them choosing not to endorse Harris There was no "they" or "them" involved.
- atonse 9mo ago
  My point is that why were they picking a candidate to begin with, even before Bezos got involved. Why wasn’t that the thing that annoyed people? I don’t like the idea of a paper taking sides (even if, in this case, their endorsement aligned with my side). It seems antithetical to the ideas of independent and non-partisan journalism.
  - justin66 9mo ago
    > Why wasn’t that the thing that annoyed people? It's an occurrence that, whether you approve or not, is a normal thing for an editorial board to do, and people pay for it. They would have already lost any subscribers who find the practice of editorial endorsements of candidates so offensive that they are unwilling to support it. They lost a quarter million subscribers because the owner of the paper began making editorial decisions.
rileymat2 9mo ago
I think it was more that the editorial team was going to endorse and it was killed by the owner interfering with that division. If they had not intended to publish one it would be a different story. You lose all appearances of journalistic independence (real or imagined) and it erodes trust.
- atonse 9mo ago
  My point is that isn’t there a difference between “we had to endorse Trump because Bezos made us do it” and “we were forced to not take a side” My point is, why are we not seeing the idea of a paper “having an endorsement ready” as itself a bad thing worthy of eroding trust? Why are newspapers picking sides at all?
  - deleted 9mo ago
    [deleted]
fluidcruft 9mo ago
That's not what happened though. They were going to endorse a candidate and Bezos interfered and forbade it. There was no "choice" about it at all and that's why I (40+ year subscriber) unsubscribed. Sorry, not sorry.
- justin66 9mo ago
  To add a little clarity, here's a link to (perhaps ironically) the Post's own reporting on the event. https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/10/25/washington-post-endorsement-president/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/10/25/washin... https://archive.is/2rJgD https://archive.is/2rJgD The key thing is, the endorsement was already written and Bezos intervened to prevent its publication. This was sort of a double-whammy: not just the paper engaging in an act of cowardice, but Bezos finally performing the sort of editorial interference everyone was worried he'd perform when he bought the paper.
UncleMeat 9mo ago
"We have a policy against endorsement" and "oh shit our megabillionarie owner is cancelling the planned endorsement at the last minute because he wants to avoid pissing off Trump" are two very different things.
- atonse 9mo ago
  But why are people ok with the fact that a newspaper was going to pick a candidate to begin with? Doesn’t that undermine their claims of non-partisanship?
  - UncleMeat 9mo ago
    Editorial boards publish opinion pieces. That is the function of the editorial page. Is "we believe that X will be a better president than Y" so different than "we believe that corn ethanol is bad policy" or "we believe that you should send your kids to public universities?"
    - atonse 8mo ago
      Yes it is different. Because they go out of their way to claim that they are non-partisan. If you endorsed one candidate and the other one wins, how can we trust your reporting about the winning candidate for the duration of their tenure? Nobody is claiming neutrality or specific issues like corn subsidies which cross party lines.
      - UncleMeat 8mo ago
        Editorial boards have never gone out of their way to claim that they are non-partisan.

by atonse 9mo ago

nemomarx 9mo ago

I think when you've historically backed one party, changing that stance is seen as a political signal. And Bezos pretty immediately cozied up to trump so can you say they were wrong to think of it that way?

JumpCrisscross 9mo ago

> don't quite understand why, because refusing to endorse anyone is a neutral step Pulling the endorsement after it goes the wrong way isn’t neutral.

atonse 9mo ago
Having an endorsement isn’t normal either. We have somehow normalized the idea that newspapers openly state their preference for a candidate. I expect that from Fox News or MSNBC. But not the Washington Post. I’ve always found the idea of papers endorsing candidates so odd, Bezos or not.

tw04 9mo ago

Because the entire reason they "refused to endorse a candidate" was at the behest of Bezos because he's a greedy coward. The actual people working at the paper were quite clear and vocal about their support of one candidate. The downside to one candidate is that his playbook was literally bringing facism to America via "Project 2025". The downside to the other candidate was highlighted by being a black woman, and not being progressive enough I guess? That's not a difficult choice for anyone outside of the ruling class.

acomjean 9mo ago
Washington posts tag line was “Democracy dies in darkness”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Dies_in_Darkness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Dies_in_Darkness It might be still, I unsubscribed due to this nonsense. Went to the guardian.

justin66 9mo ago

You misunderstand what occurred. The paper prepared an endorsement and Bezos killed it. > they refused to endorse a candidate. > for them choosing not to endorse Harris There was no "they" or "them" involved.

atonse 9mo ago
My point is that why were they picking a candidate to begin with, even before Bezos got involved. Why wasn’t that the thing that annoyed people? I don’t like the idea of a paper taking sides (even if, in this case, their endorsement aligned with my side). It seems antithetical to the ideas of independent and non-partisan journalism.
- justin66 9mo ago
  > Why wasn’t that the thing that annoyed people? It's an occurrence that, whether you approve or not, is a normal thing for an editorial board to do, and people pay for it. They would have already lost any subscribers who find the practice of editorial endorsements of candidates so offensive that they are unwilling to support it. They lost a quarter million subscribers because the owner of the paper began making editorial decisions.

rileymat2 9mo ago

I think it was more that the editorial team was going to endorse and it was killed by the owner interfering with that division. If they had not intended to publish one it would be a different story. You lose all appearances of journalistic independence (real or imagined) and it erodes trust.

atonse 9mo ago
My point is that isn’t there a difference between “we had to endorse Trump because Bezos made us do it” and “we were forced to not take a side” My point is, why are we not seeing the idea of a paper “having an endorsement ready” as itself a bad thing worthy of eroding trust? Why are newspapers picking sides at all?
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]

fluidcruft 9mo ago

That's not what happened though. They were going to endorse a candidate and Bezos interfered and forbade it. There was no "choice" about it at all and that's why I (40+ year subscriber) unsubscribed. Sorry, not sorry.

justin66 9mo ago
To add a little clarity, here's a link to (perhaps ironically) the Post's own reporting on the event. https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/10/25/washington-post-endorsement-president/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/10/25/washin... https://archive.is/2rJgD https://archive.is/2rJgD The key thing is, the endorsement was already written and Bezos intervened to prevent its publication. This was sort of a double-whammy: not just the paper engaging in an act of cowardice, but Bezos finally performing the sort of editorial interference everyone was worried he'd perform when he bought the paper.

UncleMeat 9mo ago

"We have a policy against endorsement" and "oh shit our megabillionarie owner is cancelling the planned endorsement at the last minute because he wants to avoid pissing off Trump" are two very different things.

atonse 9mo ago
But why are people ok with the fact that a newspaper was going to pick a candidate to begin with? Doesn’t that undermine their claims of non-partisanship?
- UncleMeat 9mo ago
  Editorial boards publish opinion pieces. That is the function of the editorial page. Is "we believe that X will be a better president than Y" so different than "we believe that corn ethanol is bad policy" or "we believe that you should send your kids to public universities?"
  - atonse 8mo ago
    Yes it is different. Because they go out of their way to claim that they are non-partisan. If you endorsed one candidate and the other one wins, how can we trust your reporting about the winning candidate for the duration of their tenure? Nobody is claiming neutrality or specific issues like corn subsidies which cross party lines.
    - UncleMeat 8mo ago
      Editorial boards have never gone out of their way to claim that they are non-partisan.