Employees outraged at ‘chicken-shit’ move that breaks 30-year precedent, alleging Jeff Bezos quashed Harris support

There was uproar and outrage among the Washington Post’s current and former staffers and other notable figures in the world of American media after the newspaper’s leaders on Friday chose to not endorse any candidate in the US presidential election.

The newspaper’s publisher, Will Lewis, announced on Friday that for the first time in over 30 years, the paper’s editorial board would not be endorsing a candidate in this year’s presidential election, nor in future presidential elections.

After the news broke, reactions came flooding in, with people criticizing the decision, which, according to some staffers and reporters, was allegedly made by the Post’s owner, billionaire Jeff Bezos.

Karen Attiah, a columnist for the Washington Post who writes a weekly newsletter, called the decision an “absolute stab in the back”.

  • ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    22 days ago

    The funny thing is, if they did endorse Harris, probably nobody would notice or care. But the fact that they were stopped from endorsing Harris is now a huge story.

    Jeff Bezos, meet Barbara Streisand.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    22 days ago

    I wonder if we’ll ever find out how many subscriptions they lost because of it.

      • ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        22 days ago

        Same! Now I have NYT only although they spam like crazy. Reuters is going sub now so I’ll prob pick them up since I’ve been enjoying their stuff for years now.

        • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          22 days ago

          I still have my NYT sub, I’ll be switching to games only next year though. The EIC there is a real piece of shit.

          • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            22 days ago

            Said it in another post, but my main reason for keeping NYT is for their war and science reporting. There’s only a handful of decent outfits to get quality reporting on global conflict: Bellingcat, NYT, and War Nerd, among others. NYT probably has the best funding so they have a pretty far reach. I can’t think of another outfit that is actively reporting on Sudan, Bangladesh, Côte d’Ivoire, Central America, and a whole host of other areas.

          • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            21 days ago

            There’s unbiased as in, “if two groups disagree, we won’t do anything to favour either side”.

            And then there unbiased as in, “we will report the facts as best as we can tell them, regardless of which sides, if any, those facts favour”.

            Reuters, as I understand it, is more the latter than the former. But too many major media organizations are the former.

            Whichever one of those definitions of “unbiased” you subscribe to, the other will seem biased, unless both sides are doing the same thing (eg both lying or both being honest and accurate).

          • ThirdWorldOrder@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            22 days ago

            Yeah but most times I just want the news and not the talking heads. I like Reuters on in the morning with a cup of coffee.

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    21 days ago

    If there’s someone here who thinks billionaires owning our news isn’t a problem then you should search the terms, USS Maine, Spanish-American War, and Yellow Journalism.

    Nothing has changed.

  • garretble@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    22 days ago

    I’m curious of who down the line capitulated to Bezos.

    He could say “don’t endorse!” but someone there also has to say “ok boss!”

    They could still run the endorsement. Someone may get fired for it, but Bezos isn’t down in the newsroom hitting the big STOP THE PRESSES button that shuts the whole operation down.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    22 days ago

    Sigh…Billionaires buying America media and using it for their own ends is American as Apple pie. Hearst, Pulitzer, Luce, Murdock, now Bezos. I think the thing to say about this issue is Bezos is basically a Coward and not worth the time to think about.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    22 days ago

    So the same people who spent almost a decade sanewashing trump and leaning into his candidacy for no reason other than morbid fascination and clicks are getting spanked out in public by the monster they created.

    Sucks.

    • ImADifferentBird@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      22 days ago

      I’d be willing to bet that the billionaire owners had more to do with that than you think.

      They don’t spend all that money on trusted media outlets to not control the narrative.