The Washington Post announced that it will not make an endorsement in this, and perhaps future, presidential campaigns. An endorsement of Kamala Harris has already been drafted by the editorial board, but upon demand of the paper’s owner, Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos, it was killed.
So what?
From those on the left supporting Harris, this was an outrage as if this could thwart Democrats’ winning the election, which remains neck in neck despite the fact that the Harris campaign was far better funded than Trump’s and that Harris was running against Trump, a vulgar, lying, narcissistic ignoramus.
Others argued that endorsements are essentially meaningless indulgences by newspapers, changing no one’s vote in presidential elections in general, and no one’s vote in this presidential election given how little there is left to say about either of these candidates. Was there really anyone who would care that WaPo endorsed Harris? Was there really anyone whose vote awaited a WaPo endorsement? Trump was a known quantity, for better or worse. Harris remained a political cipher, and not even the softest of pitches at a CNN town hall could get her to give a straight answer to a straight question.
But what remained of concern is why WaPo would decide now, of all times, to kill its long-standing tradition of presidential endorsements. Heather Cox Richardson put it on Bezos.
Today the Washington Post also decided not to make an endorsement in the presidential race, despite the fact a piece endorsing Harris was already drafted. Publisher William Lewis said the paper was returning to its roots of not endorsing presidential candidates, although it has endorsed candidates for decades and did so in its early years as well. His statement seemed a weak cover for the evident wish of the Washington Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos, to avoid antagonizing Trump.
Bezos gives Musk a run for his money at being the richest man in the world. But while Musk wants high tariffs against China to protect his access to electric vehicle markets, Bezos’s fortune comes from Amazon, and high tariffs would shatter his business. When he was in office, Trump went out of his way to find ways to hurt Amazon to get back at Bezos for unfavorable coverage in the Post.
It should come as no surprise that Trump is a petty little man, inclined to reward those who aid his cause and punish those who do not. Should he win the presidency, which is an eminent possibility at this time, his primary business and collateral Blue Origin space biz could well suffer. As some have pointed out, it’s not as if many WaPo pundits have been kind to Trump otherwise, calling him a multitude of harsh names, much as Trump has called Harris the same or worse. But it’s not as if Bezos has the same degree of control over columnists as he does over the paper’s endorsement. Who a newspaper endorses is basically the owner’s prerogative, and so a Harris endorsement is a direct reflection on Bezos.
And Trump is, in every way, small and petty enough to punish Bezos for his insolence, even if Bezos could buy and sell Trump any day of the week.
Trump supporters argue that WaPo’s/Bezos decision not to endorse a candidate for president is a reflection on Harris rather than Trump. They contend that the Dems have replaced an elderly candidate with a weak, unprincipled and, well, not particularly bright candidate, whose past views went deep left and who current views are largely incoherent. No matter how much you love platitudes, it’s hard to seriously claim that Harris has made clear whether she will be a moderate president or a Manchurian candidate for the left fringe.
The problem with this position is that if Bezos found Harris so weak as to be unworthy of endorsement, what then to make of the decision to end presidential endorsements rather than endorse Trump? Does that say that as bad as Harris may be, Trump is at least as bad, if not worse, as pretty much every serious person who served in his last administration has come forward to state?
It’s understandable that Bezos has business concerns that influence his choices. And it’s understandable that killing an endorsement that really won’t change anything as a sacrifice to a petty, small-handed man, made sense on a cost-benefit basis. But if you want to own a newspaper, especially one that had a rich tradition of fearless reporting such that it was considered a serious source of reliable news and commentary, then he needed to be bolder. What good is being the second, and occasionally first, richest man in the world if you can’t tell a guy selling sneakers and gaudy watches to shove it?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This post reeks of cat-lady level crazy. Go on, bask in the tongue-baths from your captive stable of authorized posters. You’re about to lose. And the worse thing is, things in the country are going to get better. A LOT better, because your side loses. You’ll never admit it. You can’t.
In case anyone ever needed proof that Scott is truly an open host that is willing to share mindless comments that don’t address his post at all, the comment above provides it.
This comment is like getting opinions on a photograph from somebody still using a monitor with 2-bit color.
I think of myself more as one of the free-range authorized posters here, where I generally stop by to figure out what our shy and retiring Benevolent Host thinks about things. Sometimes he’s just … indecipherable.
For instance, what to make of this vague and hazy bit: ” …Trump, a vulgar, lying, narcissistic ignoramus.”
Like a Kremlinologist of Old, it may take me days or weeks to tease out the meaning there….
Oh, and though not common here, a “Plus One” for the Jeff Davidson observation. You have to go waaaaay over the top to get edited.
Wow Willard. You sound like a really cool guy. Can we have a sleepover at your house? You do have a house, right? But no rats, k?
Hello darkness, my old friend
I’ve come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains
Within the sound of silence
It is good to be knowledgeable about a variety of classic songs.
The monied interest have decided Trump is the current favorite to win in November and are positioning themselves to avoid reprisals. An example of how petty Trump could be and get away with it ref Newsweek article ‘How Joe Biden Drove Elon Musk Into the Arms of Donald Trump’.
Bezos is busy like bees. He thinks he’s the Queen (King?) Bee. Elon is a veritable MuskRat. Those who throw their weight around eventually must go on diet. Only the good die young. Or did we get it backwards?
Amy Goodman destroys WaPo in her 2006 book, Static. The Times of New York as well. A very good read. As relevant today as it was then. W’s administration comes off very badly. The more things change, the more they stay the same! Or did we get it backwards? We plan on voting Green, or perhaps writing in Bernie, the Independent Democrat.
Geez. Is it Tuesday again already?
Phil Lesh, R.I.P
I hope Bezos realizes how pathetic he looks. But then billionaires have always been cowards politically.
The logic of using tariffs to single out Amazon is a bit flawed. The way these were applied during the Trump admin and how they continue to be applied today is if any entity applies and is granted an exception for a specific class code everyone else enjoys that same exception.
So an attempt by a legacy news organization to be unbiased is now a bad thing?
I disagree.
A Harris endorsement enforces the perception, of all non Democratic choir members, that the WaPo is just an extension of the DNC. Calling into question every Harris positive and Trump negative article.
I fail to see how such an endorsement helps anyone other than Trump.
At least the refusal to endorse maintains some semblance of neutrality that may help sway undecided voters via future articles.
Endorsements sabotage any potential for influence since the media source has self declared a biased viewpoint.
Some so-called sense of neutrality is utter nonsense. Is there not a “firewall” between All the News that’s fit to Print and the Editorial Page, irregardless of who claims ownership of the news organization in question?
During the Bush #43 era, WaPo was the lapdog sucking up to RepubliCant’s shameless cant. As was the eminent newspaper of record out of New York. Cf.: Static by Amy and David Goodman, Hyperion, 2006. If and only if you don’t believe me. Back to the drawing board for you, Tom. Nice try!?
You can fool some of the people all the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time, but… (fill in the blanks, if you dare!)
A well timed endorsement can be really useful*:
Sierra Club Endorses Joe Biden for President
June 14, 2023
Contact
Kevin Harris, [email protected]
WASHINGTON, DC — Today, after consulting with more than 50 chapters and groups, and with the advice and consent of our national board, the Sierra Club has decided to endorse President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris for another term in office.
* At this time (2023), the Republican nominee was unknown.
WaPo is losing money – big time. Even mega-billionaires like Bezos don’t like losing money. He needs to turn his paper around and boost circulation. If refusing to do an endorsement of presidential candidates is enough to get his odious deep-state Leftist editor to resign, then that is one person he doesn’t have to fire.