Post Imperfect
On the heels of the the billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Times announcing that the newspaper will not be making an endorsement for president, now comes the publisher and CEO of the Washington Post William Lewis announcing that they, too, will not be endorsing for president. "Or in any future presidential election." It was a decision that the Post's news division reported was made by billionaire owner Jeff Bezos, after a draft of the endorsement for Kamala Harris was sent to him for comments.
The political impact of not endorsing anyone is minimal, bordering on non-existent. Their news divisions coverage of Trump has made his fascism, convictions and dementia clear. But it's the caving in to a Hitler-embracing wannabe dictator who might possibly be elected that is so craven as a step towards enabling fascism.
The op-ed that William Lewis wrote about the reasons for the action are deeply disingenuous on several blatant levels.
For starters, Lewis wrote that it's not a newspaper's role to endorse. The problem with that, though, is that simply scrolling through the Washington Post's opinion pages shows that the paper does endorse for other races! (A quick glance showed a U.S. Senate endorsement and one, as well, for the U.S. House.) So, that explanation by Lewis is utterly meaningless. In fact, even if he came back to say, "Oh, sorry, I only meant we won't endorse in the presidential race," that would still render his reason meaningless. After all, if you don't believe it's a newspaper place to endorse, then don't endorse. Anything. But they do. So, what he says is not truthful.
Publisher Lewis also writes that the Post has generally not endorsed -- yet then names a few times the paper actually did make endorsements for "understandable reasons". So, wait, Trump's fascism, 34 felony convictions, being liable for rape, guilty of fraud, embrace of Hitler and early dementia -- and still calling the press "the enemy of the people" -- isn't a good reason??!! If all that is not an "understandable reason" to Mr. Lewis and Bezos, then nothing on earth would be. Including those he cites to explain earlier endorsements by the paper.
Making this faux-explanation worse is that he refers to not endorsing being the "tradition" of the paper. In reality -- the Washington Post endorsed Joe Biden in the last election. And has made presidential endorsements in the seven elections preceding that, dating back to 1992, a full 32 years ago. Moreover, the "tradition" that Mr. Lewis references dates back only to 1936 -- and was only "on an off" flexible since them -- while the paper was actually founded in 1877! So, that's a lot of actual and foundational "tradition" unaccounted for.
(It's worth noting about this "tradition" that it began when major Republican Eugene Meyer -- who had been appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve by Herbert Hoover in 1930 -- bought the Washington Post in 1933. An opponent of the New Deal, he instituted his "no endorsement" policy when FDR ran for re-elction in 1936. And then in 1940 and 1944. And when Harry Truman ran in 1948. And made its first "exception" to its "tradition" to endorse Republican Dwight Eisenhower in 1952. Just a coincidence, no doubt. So, yes, that's the disingenuous "tradition" William Lewis refers to. While ignoring that the paper has been endorsing presidents since 32 years ago. Some "tradition," right?!)
Further, Lewis writes that the decision to not endorse is likely to be seen by some "as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another." But he adds, "We don’t see it that way." How adorably naive -- and disingenuous. After he, must surely know that already the Trump campaign took the refusal of the Los Angeles Times to endorse a candidate as a major "blow" to the Harris campaign. It wasn't even remotely a blow (as I explained in my article), but the reality that not endorsing a candidate will and actually is being promoted as "tacit endorsement" and "condemnation" means that Mr. Lewis does not "see it that way" only is evidence of political myopia at best, and misrepresentation at worst.
For that matter, if Lewis and Bezos really, truly just wanted to make this decision devoid of any politics, he could have simply announced it a year ago, even just six months ago. Making the decision 10 days before the election only guarantees that it will have a political impact, making even more disingenuous the insistence to the contrary. All the more so because from the Post's own reporting by its separate news division, they know that its Bezos/Lewis cowardice is a step towards acquiescing to fascism. Indeed, if Trump is elected, then however William Lewis writes that he supposedly "sees" this action, he has to know that Trump will see it as caving to intimidation, which will only encourage him.
Finally in his op-ed, Lewis claims that the decision is (supposedly) in support of letting readers make up their own minds. Again, how utterly disingenuous: rather than supporting them (which sounds so "kumbaya" nurturing), this actually belittles Washington Post readers by suggesting the only factor they use for voting is who the Mighty Paper ordains from on high and tells them to! No, a newspaper endorsement, based on a range of important insights, it's "a" factor in deciding who to vote for President of the United States. But it is not (for most people, I'm sure) "the" one and only factor.
I'm sure that, like the Los Angeles Times, the Post will lose subscribers. That would be a shame because it's a terrific paper, and newspapers today deserve support. But any losses in subscribers and subsequent ad rates will be their own fault, brought on themselves due to the personal action of Jeff Bezos and William Lewis.
It's worth noting, for perspective, that Lewis himself has a Murdoch/phone-hacking past, which is still ongoing. An excellent article on the British court case was written here by Tortoise Media. (It is a British news website co-founded by former BBC News director and The Times editor James Harding, and former U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom Matthew Barzun.) As they write about the scandal at the end of the piece --
"At the same time it could play the Washington Post into serious difficulties. An active criminal inquiry would be a serious test of [WaPo owner] Jeff Bezos’s loyalty, and his credibility as a proprietor who can be trusted to get the big calls right; calls such as the appointment of Will Lewis as the paper’s CEO and publisher."
At the moment, lest anything changes, which is unlikely, this is a big call that was not gotten right, eroding that trust.
Furthermore, for all the disingenuous explanations given by William Lewis for Jeff Bezos blocking an endorsement for Kamala Harris under the faux-guise of "We're returning to tradition and it's not our responsibility to endorse, it's worth noting, as well, that the Washington Post and Jeff Bezos in particular were singled out by Trump when in office for relentless attacks. And as Jonathan last wrote in an editorial today for the conservative The Bulwark --
“And that’s what this story is about: It’s about the most consequential American entrepreneur of his generation signaling his submission to Trump — and the message that sends to every other corporation and business leader in the country. In the world."
There is one thing I will say on behalf of the Bezos/Lewis decision that the paper will not make an endorsement for president: disingenuous at the reasons were, William Lewis at least announced it in his paper, and the excellent news division wrote about it. As of yet, neither owner Patrick Soon-Shiong nor anyone at the Los Angeles Times has even mentioned that the paper is not endorsing this year.
As for William Lewis and Jeff Bezos, and the insistence that the Washington Post will not be endorsing for president "in any future presidential election", it's not unreasonable to think that this assurance about the future has a shelf life attached, depending on who's in charge and who owns the paper. How long or short that "Use By" date is remains to be seen. As the Post's own history shows, traditions are very flexible.
There's one, bitter irony in all this. The motto of the Washington Post is -- "Democracy Dies in Darkness." Jeff Bezos and William Lewis just cowardly turned off the light.
Comments