|
Friend,
This year’s most notable newspaper endorsements are the ones that never happened.
Just days before the presidential election, the billionaire owners of The Los Angeles Times1 and The Washington Post2 blocked their own editorial boards from endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris over former President Donald Trump.
Hundreds of thousands of outraged subscribers canceled their subscriptions,3 several journalists resigned in protest and the publishers made pitiful excuses for their own cowardice.
Why did the billionaires do it? Well, the newspaper owners do billions of dollars’ worth of business with the government in pharmaceuticals, defense contracting and space exploration – and they’re afraid of what might happen to their many businesses if their papers endorse Harris and Trump wins. The same day the Post pulled its endorsement, Jeff Bezos’ execs got a meeting with Trump.4 (While Bezos claims this was a total coincidence, one editor who quit in protest claims the meeting was an unmistakable “quid pro quo.”)
Canceling subscriptions is a natural form of protest when a publication abandons its principles, but the journalists in these newsrooms will feel the pain from those actions more than their bosses. The wealthiest elite control way too much of our media system and will never hold themselves accountable.5
We can lament this latest endorsement controversy as just another low point in the decline of journalism … or we can channel that outrage toward real solutions: Will you make your very first donation to help us strengthen local journalism? Since Free Press doesn’t work at the beck and call of a billionaire, we need your help to reach our monthly fundraising goal.
Both Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post and Patrick Soon-Shiong’s Los Angeles Times previously showed a glimpse of their true colors when they downsized their newsrooms right before a consequential election. Now they’re claiming that their 11th-hour abandonment of presidential endorsements represents a newfound commitment to neutrality and independence — but we cannot ignore their blatant conflicts of interest.
Their allegiance is clearly to their wallets when it should be to our democracy.
The disappearance of a few newspaper endorsements won’t change the outcome of this election … but how we respond to billionaire media owners could determine whether we still have a democracy or an informed citizenry.
When it comes to the future of journalism, we stand with the reporters committed to doing good work despite the actions of their bosses. We must demand our elected officials put the public’s needs above corporate profits. We need to invest in independent and local nonprofit outlets reinventing local journalism. They need our support, and we need yours: Can we count on your donation before the month is over?
Imagine a media system that’s accountable to the public, not just the whims of the superyacht-buying elite.
I think that’s something we can all endorse.
Thank you for your support,
Craig Aaron
Co-CEO
Free Press and Free Press Action
1. “Los Angeles Times Won’t Endorse for President,” Semafor, Oct. 22, 2024
2. “The Washington Post Says it Will Not Endorse a Candidate for President,” The Washington Post, Oct. 25, 2024
3. “Over 200,000 Subscribers Flee 'Washington Post' After Bezos Blocks Harris Endorsement,” NPR, Oct. 28, 2024
4. “Ex-WaPo Editor: This Is a Straight Bezos-Trump ‘Quid Pro Quo,’” The Daily Beast, Oct. 27, 2024
5. “The Billionaire-Media Complex,” Popular Information, Oct. 28, 2024
|
