
On Oct. 25, William Lewis, publisher and chief executive officer of The Washington Post, released a statement that The Post would not be endorsing a candidate for the United States presidency. Just a day earlier, the Los Angeles Times’ owner, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, made a similar decision to not release the paper’s presidential endorsement. In his closing paragraphs, Lewis claimed that the choice was representative of The Post’s editorial values: “character,” “courage” and “respect.” In a post on X, Soon-Shiong said the LA Times’ board “chose to remain silent” after he introduced an alternative approach to the endorsement editorial.
These decisions were met with a firestorm of discontent from reporters employed by these publications. Current and former Post opinion writers expressed their anger about the decision, including Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward, the Post reporters who broke the Watergate scandal to the public. Mariel Garza, the editorials editor of the Los Angeles Times, promptly resigned — along with two fellow editorial board members — after Soon-Shiong released his statement of silence.
Lewis and Soon-Shiong’s respective releases are not, despite their public assurances, representative of their papers’ values or principles. The leadership of national newspapers directly interfering with the editorial decisions of journalists is neither moral nor ethical: It is dangerous for democracy.
The 2024 presidential election is less than a week away, and the race could not be closer. Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are virtually tied in the polls in the seven major swing states, and the national polling numbers are equally as close. While there is little statistical evidence on the influence of editorial board endorsements on the American voter, their introductions surely wouldn’t hurt the electoral process. Allowing some of the most intellectual, well-read minds of the day to share their perspectives on the presidential candidates has the potential to spur a low-propensity voter to vote, or to change the mind of someone once set in their ways. That is where the strength of opinion journalism lies; civic dialogue and participation would be impossible without it.
But, amid recent developments in major papers across the country, the agency of opinion journalism — and journalism as a whole — is under grievous threat. In the summer of 2013, Jeff Bezos, former president and CEO of Amazon, bought The Washington Post company to save it from going under financially. While The Post got back on its feet for a period of time, it quickly fell back down, fiscally and editorially. The paper has lost millions of dollars and subscribers over the last several years, its formidable executive editor stepped down and the new, unlikable William Lewis stepped in as publisher.
There exists a problem in Bezos’ purchase. In 2023, the mogul’s company Blue Origin was granted a $3.4 billion government contract to continue infrastructure development for space travel. Now reliant on the U.S. government for a large percentage of his wealth, Bezos could be willing to allow one of his other investments to take a partisan, potentially financially dangerous point of view. If The Post’s editorial board endorsed one candidate over the other, would Bezos’ net worth be at risk if the other candidate were to assume the Oval Office? In a new guest essay in The Post, the multi-billionaire denies these allegations, claiming that there was no “quid pro quo” involved in this decision. Even still, there is no way to tell if these sentiments are in fact true. Bezos has continuously served his interests above those of the public, and it is highly probable that this track record rings true here.
Similarly, Soon-Shiong purchased the LA Times in 2018 with the goal of modernizing it, drastically changing the size and structure of the paper’s newsroom. A billionaire from the biopharmaceutical business, Soon-Shiong has had his own disagreements with the editorial staff, particularly due to his lack of experience in the field of mass media and the inappropriate interference of his daughter in internal paper matters.
Moneyed interests and the valuation of esteem over etiquette have destroyed the integrity of the free press. Bezos — and Lewis, transactionally — and Soon-Shiong’s purchases of The Post and Times, respectively, pose a threat to the perceived independence of newspaper editorial boards. According to The New York Times — whose board did publish a presidential endorsement — an editorial board is a coalition of opinion writers and editors who join forces to engage in spirited dialogue about the issues of the day. Although devoted to the same standards as their peers, the Times’ editorial board abides by a different mission: to opine and educate.
As such, the involvement of an external interest in editorial board matters is counter to the ideals of the modern newsroom. It should not be in the authority of a newspaper owner or non-member of the board to stake claim to its opinion or squash it entirely; doing so disrespects the nature of an independent press and newspaper section. Stopping professional journalists from doing their jobs and disallowing the American public from reading their opinion, especially during an election year, is deeply anti-intellectual. Ultra-billionaires are buying newspapers, changing them to fit their financial liking and then leaving them out to dry. By swiftly killing these editorials, Bezos and Soon-Shiong are slowly killing democracy.
A free press is essential to a functioning society. This principle is even included in the U.S. Constitution: The government ought not interfere in the freedom of the press. The behavior demonstrated by these executives is in direct violation of this freedom, both formally and informally threatening our most sacrosanct American values. While the government may not have been directly involved in these editorial decisions, it is certainly clear that federal funds and the potential toward retaliation have spoken for themselves.
As a young opinion journalist, it is incredibly disheartening to see professional editorial boards be forced to behave in tandem with their distracted leadership. The decisions by Bezos and Lewis, jointly, and Soon-Shiong are guided by profit, not people or principles. As distrust in the mass media continues to grow, a refusal to be candid about editorial board proceedings and partisan alignment just adds even more fuel to the fire. The press is under attack from all sides, including the inside. Placing blame on the journalists carrying your institution is truly disrespectful and shows the lack of care that these billionaires have for the craft.
Denying the publication of presidential endorsements doesn’t embody “courage” or “respect.” It is a representation of selfishness and ignorance. Right now, more than ever, the American people need to hear from one another about the state of the nation — but billionaires are getting in the middle. The haphazard purchase of widely admired newspapers has resulted in more harm than good, and democratic involvement and media trust are on the line.
Editorial Page Editor Lindsey Spencer writes about the things that make her tick, which can be anything from politics to mental health to media. She can be reached at lindssp@umich.edu.
The post Democracy dies in broad daylight appeared first on The Michigan Daily.
Leave a Reply