"Washington Post", the 3rd largest paper in the US and 1 of the most crucial for the past of free media in the West, decided exceptionally not to support any of the candidates in the US presidential election this year. This decision, forced on the editorial board by owner Jeff Bezos shows how fragile journalistic independency is in the situation in which to be or not to be a paper depends on the billionaire's goodwill.
"Washington Post" is not the only 1 – this year no 1 will be supported by another large American newspapers, "LA Times" and "USA Today". However, the "Washington Post" has a peculiar position in the US, and it was his decision that provoked a massive stir in fresh days. due to the fact that WaPo is an institution of American democracy.
In 1971, the "Washington Post" did not succumb to the pressures of the American government and published material based on the alleged Pentagon Papers, transmitted by whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg secret Pentagon papers showing what the situation in Vietnam truly looked like. The papers indicated that subsequent administrations were consciously lying to Americans. It turned out that American troops illegally bombed Cambodia and Laos, Lyndon B. Johnson, contrary to run announcements, sent more soldiers to Indochin, although military experts informed the presidents that the triumph in this war was at least questionable.
The function of the "Washington Post" in revealing the fact which has been hidden from society for years was very big. Although the first articles were published in the fresh York Times, after 3 texts the court blocked further publications. The Washington diary decided to print Ellsberg's material despite threats from Richard Nixon's administration – including a poorly veiled proposition that charges of treason could be threatened for publication. “Post” along with “Times” was a organization in the trial for access to the secret files that the press won, but the final decision of the ultimate Court came only after the WaPo publications.
"Washington Post" besides played a major function in the disclosure of the Watergate scandal (1972–1975). Reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein conducted a journalism investigation, during which it turned out that something that seemingly was just a break-in to the Democratic Party's office was actually an effort to illegally eavesdrop political competitors commissioned by Richard Nixon himself.
The consequence of an admirable journalistic investigation was – in addition to the investigations that Nixon tried to twist his head with pressures on the Department of Justice and which resulted in charges being made against nearly 70 people, and almost 50 were sentenced – Nixon's resignation from the office of President. Nixon himself did not go to jail just due to the fact that Gerald Ford, who as vice president took over the office of head of state, decided to pardon his erstwhile boss. The long-wave effect of Watergate was to introduce a standard, according to which the Department of Justice enjoys independency from the White House, especially in conducting investigations against the administration – a standard that Donald Trump hated and which together with colleagues from task 2025 He'd alternatively snap his head off.
Both stories hit cinema screens – Watergate as early as 1976 as All the President's men. The communicative of the leak of the Pentagon's secret files had to wait a small longer, due to the fact that until 2017, the premiere had an Oscar nominee Fourth Power directed by Stephen Spielberg. The second video suggests that this publication of articles based on classified papers by the Washington diary became a catalyst for decisions by another editorials, which besides decided not to succumb to the threats of Nixon's administration. Another proposition contained in the movie is that if it had not been for this decision of the newspaper, it would have been even harder (although it was never easy) to account for the presidents for their lies and crimes committed at the office.
Although films have a thing for each other, stories about boring and tedious journalistic work enrich the audience so that the audience does not fall asleep, 2 things cannot be denied. Firstly, in both cases the press decided to stand up to the ruling administration despite serious threats. The second is that the "Washington Post" alongside the "New York Times" played a very crucial function in this and thus became synonymous with journalistic integrity and courage.
"Washington Post" has not always openly expressed support for 1 of the candidates in the presidential election. This custom, rather typical of American journals, weekly newspapers, and monthly newspapers, was not accepted until 1976, while the fresh York Times has been doing so since 1852, or since its inception. This time, however, 11 days before the election, the pen of its president William Lewis (about which a small more in a moment) WaPo announced that he would not support anyone again this year. The decision justified the return to conventional impartiality – however, the failure to give Harris' expected support so short before the vote was taken very badly. Woodward and Bernstein, legends of journalism, wrote in common statementThat the decision not to support Harris is “surprising and disappointing.”
Less biting his tongue erstwhile editor-in-chief of the Marty Baron newspaper, who He called her "Coward". Robert Kagan, Michelle Norris, David E. Hoffman, and Molly Roberts left in a protest from the editorial board. The reaction of readers besides looks brutal: The paper has already lost a 4th of a million – 10 percent – of 2.5 million subscriptions.
The fact is that the support from the Washington Post – or its deficiency – will most likely not change the final result of the election. The problem is elsewhere: who actually made the decision and why.
We know the editorial board was going to support Harris. This would be a logical consequence of many years of effective resolution of scandals related to Donald Trump. The position of support was on the paper owner's desk, Jeff Bezos, for respective weeks and according to anonymous sources, it was he who made the decision not to print it, and this instruction was given to the editorial board during a very stormy college. Journalists and readers took this as an unacceptable interference in the independency of the editorial board from its owner, for which they were purely business considerations.
The main origin of Bezos' income is Amazon. Amazon Web Services, Bezasa, a company providing computer services in cloud, he received many government contracts, including from the National safety Agency, Department of Defense, the CIA and the Navy. Only the first 1 was signed in 2022 for 10 years and is worth $10 billion. Another Bezos company, Blue Origin, which deals with, among others, flights into space, besides lives mostly from government contracts. In 2023 NASA decided that it was Bezos' company (not the main competition, or SpaceX Elona Muska) that would be tasked with constructing a fresh lunar lander for the Artemis V mission. This contract is worth 3.4 billion.
Compared to these money-making machines, the Washington Post is simply a bottomless well. Between 2020 and 2023, the number of unique entries to the paper website fell by half, from 101 million to 50 million. The year 2023 ended with a failure of $77 million – and this is just financial problems over the last fewer years.
Of course, Bezos did not buy a legendary diary in 2013 (for only $250 million erstwhile the paper was in serious trouble), due to the fact that he needed money – he is the second richest man in the world, so he has money like ice. Rather, it was a consequence to the US inactive prevailing norm that richesse oblige.
An excellent example of this approach was industrialist Andrew Carnegie, 1 of the richest people in modern past who, in addition to making a luck from hard laborers in steelworks, invested immense sums in cultural objects. With Carnegi's money, over 1,700 libraries were created in the United States, as well as 1 of the world's most celebrated performance halls, Carnegie Hall, Manhattan.
Much indicates that Carnegie rather frankly, if naive enough, believed that fabulous rich people have their obligations to society. Since then, times have changed somewhat and specified actions are now treated instrumentally as image building. After all, even the Sacklers who They made a luck by driving millions of Americans into addiction, eagerly They gave money to cultural institutions And universities on both sides of the ocean.
With this investment, Bezos, who built his wealth on the demolition of tiny businesses and the exploitation of workers, changed his image from a ruthless capitalist to a light man saving the public welfare of absolutely essential democracy. Despite his concerns, he besides did not interfere with the editorial line. During his time, the Washington Post described surveillance of workers in Amazon whether the fact that Amazon magazine employees have accidents at work much more frequently than those of another companies – by providing these materials with titles that left no illusions about corporate responsibility.
A bad omen was hiring as president of the “Washington Post” mentioned by William Lewis to save a sinking editorial. Lewis, who went to the Washington diary of Wall Street Journal, had rather a lot behind his ears. He was followed up by a case of illegal telephone hacking to bargain information while he was inactive in management belonging to Rupert Murdoch (yes, from Fox News and more) "New International". erstwhile the "Washington Post" wanted to compose about Lewis being suspected in the UK of destroying evidence, the president pressed the editorial board to quit this publication. The fact that Lewis communicated the decision to readers in a alternatively tiny text, referring to the request to keep journalistic standards – ironically, should no longer be surprising.
In this context, it is rather understandable that the work for the possible plowing of 1 of the most crucial newspapers in the planet should be cast upon the reasoning only about the profit of the billionaire and his butler, who lacked his spine has proved many times. Of course, it is actual that Katherine Graham, owner and head of the "Washington Post" during the Pentagon Papers and Watergate affair, had far more civilian courage and sense of decency.
However, the problem is much deeper and multifaceted. Jeffrey Isaac, prof. of political discipline at Indiana University Bloomington, U.S. most crucial media is now owned by ultrarich billionaires, and although they have an highly crucial public function, they are no longer a public resource. The second largest newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, belongs to News Corp. Rupert Murdoch. The Boston Globe is owned by John Henry, whose main origin of income is sports clubs on both sides of the ocean. "The LA Times", who besides refused to support Harris, is in the hands of Patrick Soon-Shiong, an entrepreneur in the biotechnology industry. The Atlantic and Time Monthlys belong to Laurenea Powell Jobs and Mark Benioff respectively.
To add that many another newspapers and periodicals, especially at local level, are owned by investment funds, which are primarily liable for their shareholders (here were Warren Buffet's fingers). The problem is so structural.
The emergence of online media led to the collapse of the business model of conventional media, i.e. the operation of advertising sales. (As 1 investigator noted, the task of newspapers was not to supply information and opinions to readers, but to supply readers with advertisers.) These lost incomes were not full offset. To put it plainly, the Washington Post could no longer be or would have fallen to the rank of a small, unreliable paper if Bezos had not saved the situation in 2013. In a akin situation were “The Globe” and “LA Times” and in an even more dramatic local newspaper.
In this context, 1 thing is worth noting. Billionaires specified as Elona Muska or Peter Thiel invested a lot so Trump would be in the White home and that the puppet they planted in the individual of J.D. Vance would always be as close to him as possible. In exchange for sponsoring victory, they hoped for the right regulations – and most likely the anticipation to implement their always and completely miscarriaged ideas of socio-political ideas. Unlike the 2 mentioned characters Bezos did not belong to a group openly in love with Trump technofaszys... – sorry, technolibertarian. Yet, he made the decision he made.
As Isaac besides noted, Bezos' decision not to give support to Kamala Harris shows that he not only takes Trump's triumph seriously, but that he takes Trump's authoritarian threats and his supporters seriously. Trump's opinion on "Washington Post", "New York Times" and another media that got under his skin, describing various scandals, is well known, but his revenge would not only apply to newspapers. He most likely wouldn't contact them. Another issue is government contracts Amazon Web Services or Blue Origin.
Candidate for Vice president J.D. Vance He besides explicitly said that the Trump administration should usage taxation regulations to settle with its political opponents. Vance mentioned this in the context of university trust funds, which he considers to be a hatchery of lefty, but it is clear that the same tool can besides be used, or possibly above all, towards profit-making companies and corporations. specified methods, mainly associated with much more authoritarian states (contracts for their own, commute of businesses of opponents), can be expected to be successfully applied to others who will not stand humbly in line. This, in turn, makes this year's U.S. presidential election even higher than it may have seemed.
It should so not be amazing that Jeff Bezos traded editorial independency for business interests. Cancellation subscriptions, although understandable (what is worth even the best journalism if the editorial line is so evidently dependent on business?) will most likely not be a adequate signal for Bezos and another billionaires. It would be much more severe to lose 10% of Amazon Prime's subscription, but giving up convenient purchases with transportation under the home is harder than giving up the origin of information – especially since alternatives are inactive available. Besides, it wasn't about reorienting the editorial line. All it took was a signal that the owner of the paper could butcher the subject if needed.
Bezos himself, of course, denied this, but after announcing the decision to not support Harris, the Blue Origin chief met with Donald Trump. The conversation took place under a private plane terminal at Austin Airport, Texas, and we know about it due to the fact that she was caught by an Associated Press photographer.
Traditional media, which were the basis for honesty and integrity, have lost widespread public assurance (to a large extent, let us add, after the uncritical support of the Iraq War, but the sources of the crisis of trust are a separate text) and net media have not filled this gap. The question of whether in today's planet it would be possible to exposure the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate scandals is entirely legitimate.
