Another Post Post

After writing my piece yesterday on the Washington Post killing the editorial cartoon by Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Ann Telnaes that bluntly slammed Post owner Jeff Bezos and some other billionaires who have caved to Trump, I didn't feel that was enough, so I wrote to the paper's executive editor and opinions editor who made the decision -- as well as three managing editors, to cover all the bases.  And I thought it only proper to post that email, as well.

I think that considering how gnashed my teeth were when I wrote it, and curled my typing fingers, it comes across as very polite, all other things considered, though pointed.  Though I wanted to spew my anger more, I know from experience as a "professional letter writer" that a letter that blasts the recipient with fury won't get read much past the first sentence.

Not that I have any great expectation that this letter will be read, mind you.  Especially considering how many letters they must have been receiving.  And I have even less expectation that it will have any impact for what it says.  But at least having one more letter received that is highly critical of the decision will make the pile larger.

Dear Washington Post editors,

I fully understand that at this point any further comment on the Post’s decision to kill Ann Telnaes’ cartoon, will have next to no impact.  But to say nothing would be irresponsible.

The reason given for the action, that it was about “repetition” bordered on insulting to your readers.  It suggested that the Washington Post will only do a piece or two about a big news story and then move on.  I can’t even imagine a basis for merely hoping people would believe this.  For any notable story, every newspaper will cover it from countless angles – repetitively.  And that doesn’t take into consideration that an article, op-ed and cartoon are totally different entities.

The Post is certainly aware of the controversy it created when their endorsement of Kamala Harris was killed by owner Jeff Bezos, no doubt losing many subscribers.  So, to feed into that perception just a couple months later was deeply problematic judgement – especially for those who have long looked to the Post for clear, honest reporting…done (as the expression goes) without fear or favor.  And to do so when your publication certainly understands what’s at risk to democracy with the new administration coming in (that has been described by many experts as pushing an agenda that is authoritarian, or even fascist) is equally problematic for trust in the reporting and editorial judgement.

Problematic all the more because the Post obviously knows these decisions are in protective support of a political leader who has repeatedly called them and all journalists the “enemy of the people.”  To further enable such a person seems not just craven, but almost inexplicably self-defeating.

Though it’s not especially important that I’m a subscriber, I note that because I’m not quite sure why I haven’t canceled my subscription yet, especially now after this second “strike.”   The best I can figure is how much I deeply want to support a strong press in times when finances for the industry are difficult, even when I am appalled by some of its actions contrary to a free press and democracy.  Whether these are decisions forced by an owner, though agreed to by those who know better and are in a position to act otherwise, or are decisions made by those to anticipate the owner, the end result is the same.   And there is much excellent that the Post does.  But the paper (for me) is on the edge of that “three strikes and you’re out”.

If Jeff Bezos wants to protect his outside investments, that’s understandable.  But he shouldn’t then own the Washington Post and leave that responsibility to someone who is willing to defend a free press.  However, what he “should” do is clearly not a concern of his.

Robert Elisberg