Big money has made its move and it's betting on Trump. More precisely, they're unwilling to bet against him now. Buckle up, kids, it's the first big October surprise.
posted by tclark at 12:51 PM on October 25 [20 favorites]

'Washington Post editor-at-large Robert Kagan resigned on friday over the newspaper’s decision not to endorse Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris.' (Mediaite)
posted by mittens at 12:54 PM on October 25 [20 favorites]

CJR is the reporting forbes.com is using.

Ian Bassin, a democracy expert, calls these moves “anticipatory obedience”

...

Martin Baron, who edited the Post from 2012 to 2021, winning wide acclaim for his leadership of the newsroom during the Trump presidency, issued a statement to NPR denouncing the last-minute decision to withhold an endorsement. “This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty,” he said. “Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate the Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.”

posted by away for regrooving at 12:57 PM on October 25 [31 favorites]

We've known for a long time now whose side Your Librul Media™ is on. The WaPo may blame Bezos but their editorial page has long been home to a whole host of batshit loonitarian right-wingers whom the Washington consensus has deemed "respectable," so that just seems a convenient cover for them.

I don't follow the LA Times at all, but their fascist billionaire owner did in fact decree the "'fair and balanced' or no endorsement" position, according to what I read this morning.
posted by Pedantzilla at 12:58 PM on October 25 [8 favorites]

WaPo’s been a sewer since the Clinton days, but boy, Nixon must be dancing in his grave.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 1:00 PM on October 25 [4 favorites]

'Washington Post editor-at-large Robert Kagan resigned on friday over the newspaper’s decision not to endorse Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris.'

Been reading a lot of WWII history these days; a lot of German generals and politicians resigned too.
posted by Melismata at 1:01 PM on October 25 [13 favorites]

Post Publisher William Lewis : "The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic...".

Ah, the ever malleable American ethic: life and genocide, freedom and slavery, liberty and colonialism. Whose to say which should prevail? Certainly not the brave, objective stalwarts of the oligarchy-owned fourth estate.
posted by audi alteram partem at 1:02 PM on October 25 [7 favorites]

See this is what I meant about the NYT not actually being worse than its peers.
posted by atoxyl at 1:03 PM on October 25 [8 favorites]

Such a nothing-burger, as the kids say.

What percentage of the electorate has ever taken into consideration the opinion of a great metropolitan newspaper, when it comes to voting?
posted by Rash at 1:04 PM on October 25 [1 favorite]

I just cancelled my WaPo subscription. fucking cowards (the leadership, not the journalists)
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 1:06 PM on October 25 [12 favorites]

The LA Times's owner's daughter makes it sound like the decision to not endorse Harris relates to her position on Palestine.
posted by box at 1:09 PM on October 25 [7 favorites]

Damn it, I missed the LA times. Already cancelled WaPo this morning, and NYT years ago. Welp, off to fix that now.
posted by Lyn Never at 1:09 PM on October 25 [2 favorites]

Kamala, what are your thoughts on a government supported media service? Yes, the devil will in the details, but having to rely on billionaires for news is not sustainable for a free democracy.

I know you’re busy, but let me know!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:09 PM on October 25 [4 favorites]

What percentage of the electorate has ever taken into consideration the opinion of a great metropolitan newspaper, when it comes to voting?

A couple dozen (2000), a few hundred (2020) or a couple thousand (2016) in the right states is all it takes.

If Harris wins or loses, it's clear that enough of America wants fascism, and we'll probably get it. Good and hard, as Mencken says. If it didn't, it would be a blowout.
posted by tclark at 1:10 PM on October 25 [11 favorites]

Democracy dies in darkness, eh?

People were upset in the Carolyn Hax chat today.

Last chat Guest10:20 a.m.
You don't have to publish this (I don't expect you to) but I've just canceled my WaPo subscription over the editorial board not being allowed to endorse a president thanks to some combination of Bezos/Lewis/Shipley. Apparently I still have a couple months left because it's an annual subscription, but I'll quit today anyway. I'm sad to lose access to your chats, but not taking a stand in this election is unconscionable. I wish you the best.

Carolyn Hax Advice Columnist
I agree, unconscionable is the word. I am sorry to see you go but I understand.

Washington Post Guest10:36 a.m.
Thanks for discussing this. I’m devastated and appalled by the editorial board decision. Particularly because there are fantastic political reporters working for The Post, who I want to continue to support. I can’t imagine the strain this puts on them. I feel sick over it.

Carolyn Hax Advice Columnist
Thank you -- I know I have left more dead air out there but this is what I was looking for. The Washington Post is not a monolith. It is separate pieces that work independently, and the news side is out there doing its thing without regard for the moral repugnance of the non-endorsement. All of us need to serve our consciences, but I hope people will recognize the value of supporting the news side as well as the many excellent opinion writers. I have, just to name one, a terrible Jennifer Rubin dependency that I hope you all will help me support.
Please know too that I have never been told what to write. Advice column, yes, I know, I have no delusions of grandeur, but I also live in culture war territory. So take that for what it's worth.

(related subject matter about a question of ending friendship over Trump fandom)
The only good thing about it that I can think of is that time will take care of it eventually, and there won't be this big orange wedge forcing all this stuff openly onto sides. This is human nature and it was always there, and it will always be there, but what we don't always have is a catalyst. There are long stretches where we can hold these differences in us and get along, sometimes uneasily, sometimes great! and not really know how deeply we may disagree. But then some factors align to drag it out of us and boom. Disinformation plus divisive figure plus certain economic conditions and boom, you get a flareup of open hatreds. Social media as accelerant, too, wow.

Another guest post:
Does anyone thing it really matters whether the WaPo or LA Times endorses a presidential candidate? Everyone should know who the Editorial Board supports. And as the editor of the LA Times said when she urged people not to cancel their subscriptions, “Your subscription supports our journalists.”. If there are no subscribers, there is no newspaper.

Carolyn Hax Advice Columnist
That is the thing, yes. Well those are two things and they are correct: that an endorsement wouldn't likely change any minds and the subscriptions support the journalism, which is independent and extremely necessary.
The third thing is what people are reacting to: that when politics ceases to be just politics and becomes a moral issue, when you have the insurrection/felony conviction/sexual assault adjudication/multiple former associates sounding the alarm and his own promise in his own words of rounding up critics as enemies despite a crystal clear first Amendment (and I'm shortening the list here because I have to go, leaving out the nazi stuff ffs), then it's unacceptable not to take the stand.

Another guest poster:
I am not challenging anyone on this, but I would truly like to know: When did it become an obligation of a news organization to endorse a presidential / gubernatorial/ mayoral candidate? Though I do wish they would endorse my candidate of choice, I don’t understand the genuine outrage I am hearing, here and elsewhere. Has it always been this way and I have just missed it? How can a news org claim to be unbiased if/when they endorse a candidate, which is the definition of bias? Sorry if I’m just being obtuse.

Carolyn Hax Advice Columnist
Well, news orgs have always had their news side and editorial sides, so WaPo for example has had an editorial board all along that posts the opinion (unsigned) of The Washington Post. So that is not new. There was never an obligation to use that board to endorse candidates. If The Post were to decide to get out of the endorsement business altogether at any other time, then I'd be okay with that as an editorial stance. This was just not the election to do it, with the stakes so high from having an egregiously unfit and dangerous candidate on the ticket.

posted by jenfullmoon at 1:11 PM on October 25 [13 favorites]

All I can say is:

Democracy Dies In Darkness

(last comment beat me to it of course!)
posted by fortitude25 at 1:12 PM on October 25 [3 favorites]

On the one hand: I’m appalled by the clear intermingling or corporate interests with the editorial direction.

On the other hand: I’m actually not too sure if I feel newspapers should specifically endorse presidential candidates in the current political and media sphere. for smaller elections, it makes sense to me, because there’s not enough media coverage or general interest to ensure an informed voter base. But for elections where the voter base is clearly informed… I guess I’m mixed. It’s a precedent that’s been set but it’s maybe not a good one.
posted by samthemander at 1:14 PM on October 25

I'm borrowing (stealing) this from I don't remember who on BlueSky, but who would have ever thought that the best and most realistic campaign coverage would be from Rolling Stone and Teen Vogue?
posted by soundguy99 at 1:17 PM on October 25 [21 favorites]

But for elections where the voter base is clearly informed

I would say the voter base is clearly already decided, but I would not call the American voter base clearly informed.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 1:17 PM on October 25 [18 favorites]

But for elections where the voter base is clearly informed…

Clearly you are posting from Timeline 616 where the voters are curious, motivated, and engaged.

Unfortunately, we are living in Timeline 666, where the voters are making their selections based on what some knucklehead said on a YouTube channel and that one ad they saw watching CSI reruns.
posted by soundguy99 at 1:22 PM on October 25 [8 favorites]

Man, Crying of Lot 49.
posted by effluvia at 1:30 PM on October 25 [1 favorite]

.
posted by limeonaire at 1:33 PM on October 25 [2 favorites]

"... consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects.” is some world-class bullshit.
posted by still_wears_a_hat at 1:37 PM on October 25 [8 favorites]

This is pointless. No halfway reality-based news outlet can appease Trump, because he demands an endless river of fawning lies and ass-kissing, and immediately turns on anyone or anything who reports, accurately or not, on the actual things that he says and does. You can't get on Trump's good side, he doesn't have one.
posted by 1adam12 at 1:37 PM on October 25 [13 favorites]

Ownership seems to be jostling for a deck chair, while the iceberg awaits them and everyone else.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 1:37 PM on October 25 [12 favorites]

A disgusting display of idiot, cowardly, spineless billionaires.
posted by freakazoid at 1:43 PM on October 25

Spineless fuckers.

Also makes me VERY nervous, with the polymarket stuff. Yes, we know about the one donor and the trying-to-stack-the-odds and perception washing....

But

Statistically, money is cowardly, but on average it isn't dumb.

I really hope the progressive independent ground game has - and continues to be - effective up until and through the inevitable post- lawsuits.

Along those lines...we should have a thread about "which NON-DNC, grassroots org needs last minute $ in swing states" for GOTV and day-of-election support in Dem leaning districts?
posted by lalochezia at 1:46 PM on October 25 [2 favorites]

I was thinking that stuff like this has a cumulative sort of Roko's Basilisk effect, where if you don't help bring Trump to power you'll be punished if he acquires it so the incentive is to help him and that snowballs; the more people who think he's going to win the more people who help him or are afraid not to support him so he's increasingly likely to win. I don't know who's going to win and I don't trust anyone who thinks they do but I thought it was an interesting and depressing/terrifying phenomenon.
posted by an octopus IRL at 1:48 PM on October 25 [4 favorites]

who would have ever thought that the best and most realistic campaign coverage would be from Rolling Stone and Teen Vogue?

Anyone that was paying attention to the media back in 2020?
posted by not just everyday big moggies at 1:48 PM on October 25 [13 favorites]

I'm borrowing (stealing) this from I don't remember who on BlueSky, but who would have ever thought that the best and most realistic campaign coverage would be from Rolling Stone and Teen Vogue?

Hey, that was me! first and only time I've ever made a positive contribution to the Blue! (LOL)

Seriously though, the LA Times owner's anticipatory obedience (thanks T. Snyder for that phrase, its perfect) depresses the hell out of me (more that the WAPO, even though WAPO has much greater sway). The LA Times columnists have been eviscerating the malevolence that is trumpism for a long time now. When the WAPO and NYT sanewashing became overwhelming I could always turn to the LA Times for some great columnists' work.

fuck Shin Soong, and fuck Bezos (but the last is a forever thing).
posted by WatTylerJr at 1:53 PM on October 25 [7 favorites]

the media stands for something regardless of how much they think they're objective... they're showing us what they stand for and it ain't democracy and a free press
posted by kokaku at 2:00 PM on October 25 [3 favorites]

Canceled my subscription and sent nasty comments and letter to the editor.
posted by leslies at 2:02 PM on October 25 [1 favorite]

As I saw online today: “Democracy dies in darkness, and the corporate owned media is turning off the lights.”
posted by azpenguin at 2:03 PM on October 25 [13 favorites]

Jeff Lawson (CEO of The Onion new parent company) is such a billionaire there’s not even a Wikipedia page for him. He is named in the Jeff Lawson disambiguation page and on the Twilio page, both without links to a bio page for him. This is not a good sign.
posted by toodleydoodley at 2:07 PM on October 25 [1 favorite]

I’m actually not too sure if I feel newspapers should specifically endorse presidential candidates in the current political and media sphere.

"Minnesota Star Tribune endorses voters, not candidates, in upcoming election"
posted by BWA at 2:08 PM on October 25

I’m actually not too sure if I feel newspapers should specifically endorse presidential candidates in the current political and media sphere.

if not now, when?
posted by kokaku at 2:11 PM on October 25 [6 favorites]

Seen several journos say that one of those editors should just push the “publish” button anyway. I suspect that the WaPo and/or the LAT endorsement is going to get leaked soon enough.
posted by azpenguin at 2:18 PM on October 25 [8 favorites]

What percentage of the electorate has ever taken into consideration the opinion of a great metropolitan newspaper, when it comes to voting?

The problem with this isn't so much that the election will be massively impacted by such an endorsement, it's that the owners of the paper are overriding the editors. You may think that's within their rights, and I suppose it is, but I for one am not going to pay a whit of attention to a newspaper whose owners feel it is their place to override the editors. Nobody should. And if nobody should read your newspaper, what are you even doing?

And to be clear, the shorthand "X publication endorsed so-and-so" is a little misleading. As pointed out in the transcript up-thread, what it really means is "the editorial [i.e., opinion] side of X endorsed so-and-so" which is an important distinction, although often lost on people I would expect. I am sympathetic to the idea that newspapers should get rid of opinion altogether. I don't think it's necessary at all, and not particularly valuable either.
posted by axiom at 2:19 PM on October 25 [15 favorites]

The Minnesota Strib is another paper owned by a billionaire. Seems like a trend - buy a a paper to claim civic virtue, then remove any spine it may have.
posted by zenzenobia at 2:21 PM on October 25 [5 favorites]

There's still time to send letters to registered but infrequent voters in Swing States! (Vote forward)
posted by Saxon Kane at 2:24 PM on October 25 [4 favorites]

You'd think the editorial staff and the owner would be smarter by now. Withholding that endorsement isn't going to save the paper if Trump wins. If Trump wins, the free press will be over in America.
posted by newdaddy at 2:29 PM on October 25 [6 favorites]

> Along those lines...we should have a thread about "which NON-DNC, grassroots org needs last minute $ in swing states" for GOTV and day-of-election support in Dem leaning districts?


I'm sending more money to the Movement Voter Project, if you want to join me. VoteAmerica is good, too.
posted by gingerbeer at 2:32 PM on October 25 [3 favorites]

Maybe all those principled Washington Post journalists can set up their own Defector. I’d subscribe.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 2:37 PM on October 25 [3 favorites]

Withholding that endorsement isn't going to save the paper if Trump wins. If Trump wins, the free press will be over in America.

Billionaires don’t care about the survival of the papers they own, they are making the bet that their other streams of revenue will be fuller under Trump, whereas Harris will bring more regulation and checks on their power.
posted by Jon_Evil at 2:38 PM on October 25 [6 favorites]

Working towards the fuhrer indeed
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:39 PM on October 25

“If not now, when?”

I guess that’s my point. Maybe never? Maybe it actually harms the perception of a newspaper if they take a political stance while claiming to be objective?

Honestly, my confusion about how I feel about removing an endorsement is not me secretly supporting trump, but rather musing to try to suss out what I think is right/appropriate, and I guess I’m taking you guys along for the ride (my apologies). I do feel like there is a case to be made for not endorsing anyone, even though I also feel there is clearly a candidate people should vote for (and one they should not).

My perspective is maybe also colored by my extreme disgust over the US’ support of genocide in Gaza. This does actually seem like a reasonable time to make a transition away from endorsing a candidate, both in this election and in the future, and instead shifting to providing information about their relative campaign platforms.

(To be clear: I am voting for Harris and am deeply disheartened that this is not the obvious choice for apparently half of our country. )
posted by samthemander at 2:40 PM on October 25 [1 favorite]

Axiom: thank you for eloquently describing the muddled reaction I’ve been having.

I hate that the owners are messing with the editorial board.

I am not sure editorial boards should be endorsing a candidate if they intend to maintain the perception of being “politically neutral” - and yes, I know, all of real life is a result of politics, but I specifically mean staking a tie to a particular political party, which is unfortunately now fully connected to the presidential vote.
posted by samthemander at 2:44 PM on October 25

The idea that media outlets should not endorse has merit. However, the time for them to announce they would not be issuing a presidential endorsement was many months or even 2-3 years ago, particularly when the paper has issued an endorsement for decades. You don’t suddenly announce that within two weeks of the election when your editorial board was working in good faith with the understanding that they were going to issue the endorsement. The timing of this has stated loud and clear that the paper’s ownership endorses Trump, even if the people who do actual journalism work do not.
posted by azpenguin at 3:05 PM on October 25 [21 favorites]

Why the f**k should newspapers endorse any candidate or particular issue? I've long been baffled and/or angered by political endorsements - by unions, by politicians, by businesses, by trade groups - but particularly newspapers.
posted by davidmsc at 3:10 PM on October 25

I detected Snyder's work in Away for regrooving's post. Particularly his work in On Tyranny: Twenty lessons from the Twentieth century(archive.org)(alt link some hungarian domain). It's a bus stop read, you can make time for this one. The paperback I have is 120 pages in HUGE type and giant margins. There is also a youtube series of the 20 lessons here.

If you're not feeling clicky, here are the 20 lesson titles.

1. Do not obey in advance.
2. Defend institutions.
3. Beware the one-party state.
4. Take responsibility for the face of the world.
5. Remember professional ethics.
6. Be wary of paramilitaries.
7. Be reflective if you must be armed.
8. Stand out.
9. Be kind to our language.
10. Believe in truth.
11 . Investigate.
12. Make eye contact and small talk.
13. Practice corporeal politics.
14. Establish a private life.
15. Contribute to good causes.
16. Learn from peers in other countries.
17. Listen for dangerous words.
18. Be calm when the unthinkable arrives.
19. Be a patriot.
20. Be as courageous as you can

Do not obey in advance is the first lesson. One example he gives is how Austrians began persecuting jews after the Anschluss in expectation of the Nazis arrival.
posted by adept256 at 3:17 PM on October 25 [15 favorites]

Also makes me VERY nervous, with the polymarket stuff. Yes, we know about the one donor and the trying-to-stack-the-odds and perception washing....

It's amusing to consider that it might be a legit hedge.
posted by ryanrs at 3:18 PM on October 25

Since Kamala Harris and her husband have a home base in Los Angeles, the county and state are heavily Democratic voters, and readers in Los Angeles are accustomed to getting in depth information about voting from the Los Angeles Times, and the owner has just collared the editorial board, this is likely to be a very unpopular move in the community and will cost the owner a lot of subscriptions and lots of angry letters from readers.
posted by effluvia at 3:21 PM on October 25 [3 favorites]

The Washington Post Bends the Knee to Trump: Billionaires can’t be trusted to maintain the institutions of democracy. [Benjamin Wittes | The Bulwark]
posted by mazola at 3:22 PM on October 25 [4 favorites]

I suspect that the WaPo and/or the LAT endorsement is going to get leaked soon enough.

Almost certainly, but the content of the endorsement isn't really important. It will say the same stuff as any other endorsement.

That Bezos singlehandedly reached down and quashed the endorsement is all anyone really needs to know here. Had WaPo endorsed Harris everyone would have forgotten tomorrow. Now millions of people are talking about the craven and controlling ownership of an ostensibly editorially independent news outlet.

Even if they went back on it and published the official endorsement (a possibility), the damage is done.
posted by BlackLeotardfront at 3:30 PM on October 25 [8 favorites]

Why the f**k should newspapers endorse any candidate or particular issue?

Well, in ye olde days, when people had a more longstanding relationship with a smallish number of papers, there is merit to the idea that the opinion pages (as opposed to news) tell you more what the editorial staff's bias (and all people have one) of a newspaper is like, rather than the alternative being that you had to read between the lines of the news stories. for example, in MI, the common understanding was always that the Detroit News leant right while the Detroit free Press leant left. A lot of that is going to come from opinion pages, although certainly a case could be made that you could still suss it out without them, it'd just be much harder.

I think that argument holds some weight pre-internet. But now, people often just google and read what comes up, so they're not going to have any familiarity with the perceived bias of the opinion pages from the $INSERT_PAPER_HERE that wins the google SEO lottery. Now obviously for bigger fish such as NYT/WaPo/LAT that's less of a concern. But if you start with the premise that some forthrightness on opinion is good, then it's not too long before you arrive at "it's OK for the opinion pages to endorse" because that's kind of what they're there for, and how well such an endorsement comports-or-doesn't with the perceived bias of the editors is useful information. Returning to my earlier example, if say the Detroit News endorses Harris, that really means something because in normal circumstances you would expect them to endorse the Republican. Much the same way as Liz Cheney endorsing Harris should give people pause.
posted by axiom at 3:31 PM on October 25 [4 favorites]

Ann Telnaes's editorial about it in the WaPo is worth seeing (unlike the facile tripe their CEO posted).
posted by joeyh at 3:36 PM on October 25 [5 favorites]

Well, their motto is "Democracy Dies in Darkness." I guess Bezos decided it was time.
posted by Naberius at 3:38 PM on October 25 [4 favorites]

I don't have a paid subscription to WaPo to cancel, so instead I cancelled my Amazon Prime subscription (yeah, yeah, I know), and made sure to say why in the survey.

frankly, Bezos cares more about Amazon than WaPo, and that's the justification underlying this decision.
posted by suelac at 3:39 PM on October 25 [4 favorites]

Just saw this, and it is hitting me hard for whatever reason. Shameful. Grim.
posted by LobsterMitten at 3:42 PM on October 25 [3 favorites]

Thank you axiom - appreciate your insight.
posted by davidmsc at 3:43 PM on October 25

Suelac is 100% correct, kill Prime. It must die. It must die. Terrible cunts.
posted by BigBrooklyn at 4:01 PM on October 25

This week, I've cancelled subscriptions to the WaPo, LA Times, and the Nation over their non-endorsements.

Actually, the WaPo cancellation was over editorial decisions on campaign coverage, the non-endorsement broke after I'd already cancelled. But damn if it didn't validate my opinion.

This is sad because the WaPo and Times have good reporters and good pieces who are being let down by their editors and owners. Original reporting is absolutely vital for a functioning nation and I feel we're just in a death spiral for the profession. Papers stop being economically viable, the industry contracts, and the handful of remaining outlets are owned by billionaires or small-c conservative organizations (looking at you, NPR News) who are too timid to rise to the challenge.

I'm down to supporting Talking Points Memo. I also received a gift subscription to the Atlantic last Christmas, which is certainly doing yeoman's work on the Trump front. But neither of those really count as primarily "reporting" institutions (TPM can do some, but is so small they are of necessity doing a lot of news aggregation. A and the Atlantic is primarily analysis and opinion over reporting.)
posted by mark k at 4:02 PM on October 25 [2 favorites]

I should have known after Bezos bought it that "Democracy Dies in Darkness" wasn't a warning but rather a mission statement.

Oh well, buh-bye WaPo subscription, you've just been cancelled.
posted by los pantalones del muerte at 4:11 PM on October 25 [2 favorites]

This week, I've cancelled subscriptions to the WaPo, LA Times, and the Nation over their non-endorsements.

The Nation did endorse Kamala Harris. It's the interns that don't endorse her, in defiance of the magazine. Or am I missing something?

Normally I would applaud the magazine for publishing that dissent, but if it leads to people thinking that's The Nation's opinion, that's unfortunate.
posted by mistersix at 4:21 PM on October 25

I've long been baffled and/or angered by political endorsements - by unions, by politicians, by businesses, by trade groups -

Unions and trade groups are often communicating to their members (in a public forum) that other members have done the research and think a certain candidate is better for their shared interests.
posted by tofu_crouton at 4:25 PM on October 25 [3 favorites]

The Nation did endorse Kamala Harris. It's the interns that don't endorse her, in defiance of the magazine. Or am I missing something?

Normally I would applaud the magazine for publishing that dissent, but if it leads to people thinking that's The Nation's opinion, that's unfortunate.

Oops, no, thanks for the clarification. That's on me.

I saw the headline, in the Nation, that Harris did not deserve the Nation's endorsement and assumed things I didn't need to assume since I could have clicked on the piece. I didn't feel like clicking on the piece is my main defense.
posted by mark k at 4:33 PM on October 25

Why the f**k should newspapers endorse any candidate or particular issue?

why shouldn't they?

newspapers, magazines, websites, podcasts are not objective, neutral entities... they have biases and opinions however much they want to pretend they don't. they have authority... people care what they think.

if you doubt that, for example, ask any middle of the road liberal NYT reader what they think about trans kids having medical treatment or playing sports... I'd bet good money they'll parrot the shitty takes of the NYT.

so, yes, the major newspapers endorsing a candidate makes a difference. and as someone said above, announcing you're not endorsing a candidate now is basically endorsing Trump and the Republicans. which, well, amab? all media are bastards?
posted by kokaku at 4:35 PM on October 25 [1 favorite]

I don't know why people are asserting this is about money.

Jeff Bezos doesn't need money. The idea that he'll be dinged in any way by cancelled WaPo subscriptions is unhinged.

He is physically afraid or there is something to be had on him. Just like all of the others. The latter scenario is easy pickings and it is likely a combination of both.

Again. Just like all the others.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 5:29 PM on October 25

The AP article on the topic, I think, made the claim that refusing to endorse was about not widening the divide in the country, which I think is disingenuous. The divide is the size of the Grand Canyon already and one side is actively dangerous to the country.
posted by Peach at 5:36 PM on October 25

You are not currently logged in. Log in or create a new account to post comments.