Op-Ed Sections, Threat or Menace?

[WriteThinking]

It was a unilateral decision by one man. 'The newspaper" didn't make the decision.

Unfortunately, the paper has to own it, particularly with an Editorial page decision. That is, usually, pretty much the definition of Editorial page decisions.

What could have been done, if it needed to be (and apparently, it did) was for the paper's Editorial board to run its planned endorsement, and for Bezos to run a separate piece with his support/reasoning for not having an endorsement, on the same page, under his name, as an individual opinion piece. That is often done when people have something in direct opposition, or else otherwise deemed worthwhile, to say.

Of course, Bezos didn't have the courage (or the journalism background, either) to think of, suggest, or do that, even if he certainly had the clout and could have taken full advantage of it. He would have proven himself a great, supportive owner of a newspaper as an institution had he done something like that.

Instead, he laid it all on "the newspaper."

 

[Twirling Time]

I think the point being raised is that boycotting a corporation or an individual is difficult if not impossible if you're going for a whole approach. The Kochs own a bunch of popular brands for example.

 

[Slacker]

Posted this on the Politics thread, too ...

It has fallen to me,
the humor columnist, to
endorse Harris for president
Isn't this what a newspaper is supposed to do?

By Alexandra Petri
The Washington Post

We as a newspaper suddenly remembered, less than two weeks before the election, that we had a robust tradition 50 years ago of not telling anyone what to do with their vote for president. It is time we got back to those "roots," I'm told!

Roots are important, of course. As recently as the 1970s, The Post did not endorse a candidate for president. As recently as centuries ago, there was no Post and the country had a king! Go even further back, and the entire continent of North America was totally uninhabitable, and we were all spineless creatures who lived in the ocean, and certainly there were no Post subscribers.

But if I were the paper, I would be a little embarrassed that it has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to make our presidential endorsement. I will spare you the suspense: I am endorsing Kamala Harris for president, because I like elections and want to keep having them. ...

Embarrassingly enough, I like this country. But everything good about it has been the product of centuries of people who had no reason to hope for better but chose to believe that better things were possible, clawing their way uphill — protesting, marching, voting, and, yes, doing the work of journalism — to build this fragile thing called democracy. But to be fragile is not the same as to be perishable, as G.K. Chesterton wrote. Simply do not break a glass, and it will last a thousand years. Smash it, and it will not last an instant. Democracy is like that: fragile, but only if you shatter it.

Trust is like that, too, as newspapers know.

I'm just a humor columnist. I only know what's happening because our actual journalists are out there reporting, knowing that their editors have their backs, that there's no one too powerful to report on, that we would never pull a punch out of fear. That's what our readers deserve and expect: that we are saying what we really think, reporting what we really see; that if we think Trump should not return to the White House and Harris would make a fine president, we're going to be able to say so.

That's why I, the humor columnist, am endorsing Kamala Harris by myself!

 

[Mr. X]

What difference will this make? I don't think it is funny.

Posted this on the Politics thread, too ...

It has fallen to me,
the humor columnist, to
endorse Harris for president
Isn't this what a newspaper is supposed to do?

 

[DanOregon]

In a very weird way, Bezos spiking the Harris endorsement might have been a more powerful argument to vote for her than just letting it run.

 

[Readallover]

Perceived editorial bias is a reason cited by some former subscribers for their leaving. There is no obligation for the editorial page to endorse any candidate for any office and some might say it's the smart decision in terms of being neutral and impartial.

 

[Mr. X]

In a very weird way, Bezos spiking the Harris endorsement might have been a more powerful argument to vote for her than just letting it run.

Please provide details.

 

[DanOregon]

Ok - one of her arguments is that billionaires have too much influence in our democracy. Bezos just proved her point. What's the the line journalism teachers always used? "Show, don't tell."

If the WP published an endorsement of Harris it would have been met with "Of course they did..." and that's it. Not saying Bezos is doing some 3D chess or anything, he's seriously damaged the paper's brand.

 

[PaperClip529]

Ok - one of her arguments is that billionaires have too much influence in our democracy. Bezos just proved her point. What's the the line journalism teachers always used? "Show, don't tell."

Exactly. Had the endorsement just ran on a Monday, it would have been forgotten by Tuesday. Now it's become a weeklong story that has proven people's preconceived points and brought attention to issues that some didn't know existed.

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

What difference will this make? I don't think it is funny.

Thank you for your input, Mr. Bezos, but you're still wrong.

 

[Azrael]

Why Major Newspapers Won't Endorse Kamala Harris

We were ready to endorse Harris, and Soon-Shiong's post on X was the first time I or my fellow editorial writers had heard anything about a side-by-side analysis. Having been so casually thrown under the bus, I resigned Thursday. My colleague Karin Klein also announced that she would step down.

Robert Greene was an editorial writer for the Los Angeles Times for 18 years. He was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2021 for a series of editorials that advanced the cause of criminal-justice reform.

 

[Azrael]