Editorial: Cowardly Bezos; Our Presidential Endorsement for Harris

Is there a newspaper owner as cowardly as Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post? 

On Oct. 25 – with national polls roughly even just 11 days before the 2024 U.S. presidential election Nov. 5 – Bezos and the Post’s new publisher and CEO, William Lewis, confirmed that The Washington Post Editorial Board’s endorsement of Democratic candidate Kamala Harris – already written and ready for publication – would be withheld as a matter of “principle” and that no endorsement would be offered this year. 

Every four years, since 1976, The Post has routinely endorsed an American presidential candidate. But, according to The Post, Bezos, “the billionaire founder of Amazon, made the decision to stop the practice of presidential endorsements, calling it ‘a principled decision’ to bolster the paper’s position as an independent source of information and said it was intended to help restore trust in the media.” 

Lewis described the Post’s decision as a “return to the paper’s roots and a sign of its independence,” the Post reported, and “rejected the notion that it represents a tacit endorsement – or rejection – of either [presidential] candidate.” 

Yeah, right.

The rest of the world understands the Post’s decision as a clear boon to the Trump campaign and an obvious blow to the Harris campaign – a craven attempt by Bezos to curry Republican candidate Donald Trump’s favor to protect Bezos’s highly-lucrative federal contracts should Trump return to the White House and begin “settling scores.”

Given how much investigative reporting Bezos’s Post has done to reveal the Republican candidate Trump’s “threat to democracy,” his corruption during his presidency, and his increasing signs of aging and possible dementia along the campaign trail, the news of the Post’s non-endorsement came as a jolt, angering thousands of the Post’s longtime subscribers. The Post has also given plenty of positive coverage and editorial attention to Harris’s accomplished record, her professional competence, and the liberal/centrist policies she espouses.

So, issuing an endorsement for Harris wouldn't have set off a firestorm, but certainly withholding an endorsement would.

“After non-endorsement, 250,000 subscribers cancel The Washington Post,” a Post story in the A-section headlined today, Oct. 30. “The figures represent about 10 percent of The Post’s digital subscribers.” 

“Despite the assurances from Bezos and Lewis, the blowback has been intense,” The Post reported. “More than 20 Post opinion columnists dissented in a piece The Post published, and three members of the editorial board stepped down from that role, while remaining on the staff.”

“The move was criticized by former editor Marty Baron, who considered it to be an act of ‘disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage’ and said that it would invite intimidation of Bezos by Donald Trump,” Wikipedia already reports. “Editor-at-large Robert Kagan also resigned in the wake of the decision.” And, the first African-American female host of NPR and a Post Columnist, Michele Norris, also resigned from The Post.

In an Oct. 27 column, Post Associate Editor and Columnist, Karen Tumulty, decried Bezos’s decision at a time “when a major-party presidential candidate, using language that we associate with dictators, is promising to take America in a direction that even those who have worked with him equate with fascism.”

On Fox News, former Post writer Howard Kurtz reported: “Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin had some harsh words for her paper's billionaire owner Jeff Bezos over his ‘bullshit explanation’ [expletive revealed] behind the non-endorsement in the 2024 presidential race.”  

Kurtz quotes Rubin from her podcast, Jen Rubin's Green Room: "First of all, I do not believe the reason stated. I don't believe… [Bezos] has suddenly decided that we should endorse everybody except presidential candidates, and that, of all the elections, this is the one to start with this new policy," Rubin began Tuesday's installment…. ‘We endorsed a presidential candidate in 2020, no problem. And I perceive this – and even if it's not intended – it is inevitably perceived as bending the knee to Donald Trump at the worst possible moment when democracy is on the line.’"

For The Post’s Karen Tumulty, “The rationale cited in our leaders’ statement was an insult to our colleagues throughout this newspaper and to our readers.” And “why did the newspaper wait until just 11 days before the election to announce it?,” Tumulty asked. “Our current owner has emblazoned ‘Democracy Dies in Darkness’ on the front page of every edition of The Washington Post. With this decision, those words now stand as an indictment of ourselves.”

On Oct. 28, The Post ran a “Note from Our Owner” entitled “The hard truth: Americans don’t trust the news media.” The guest column bylined by Bezos encapsulates not only his disingenuous case and condescending arrogance, but raises doubts about his understanding of the influence of major American newspapers as their decisions are reported on by national media.

There’s a “bitter pill to swallow,” Bezos pretentiously lets his liberal readers and the dissenting journalists on his payroll know. “Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working…. Most people believe the media is biased.” 

Okay, so The Post is just lumped into the rest of “the media” now? It has no heft or sway with any undecided voters? Its editorial and owner’s decisions don’t wind up on the evening news outside of Washington, D.C.?

“A victim mentality will not help,” Bezos condescends. “Complaining is not a strategy. We must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility. Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, ‘I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.’ None.’”

This assertion is absurd. “Some” voters will certainly be persuaded by a Post endorsement. Even more will certainly be persuaded by a non-endorsement, given follow-on media coverage of a major decision from The Post. The likelihood of “none” being persuaded is nil. 

“What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias,” Bezos opines. While this is obviously a true statement, it’s misleading. To eliminate all elements of bias inside the pages of The Washington Post would also require eliminating its editorial and op-ed pages, right? 

Is it even possible to eliminate bias from a newspaper? Wouldn’t it be better to use the editorial page as the place to lay down what you actually think?

“I would also like to be clear that no quid pro quo of any kind is at work here,” Bezos states defensively. “Neither campaign nor candidate was consulted or informed at any level or in any way about this decision. It was made entirely internally.” 

That’s nice. Except, the “quo” in this case won’t likely be made until after Trump returns to office, though the “quid” has been proffered. 

Bezos goes on to make an embarrassing confession. “Dave Limp, the chief executive of one of my companies, Blue Origin, met with former president Donald Trump on the day of our announcement,” Bezos wrote. “I sighed when I found out, because I knew it would provide ammunition to those who would like to frame this as anything other than a principled decision…” 

So, let’s get this straight: You’re wringing your hands about perceptions of bias in the Washington Post, but your Blue Origin CEO had a meeting with Trump on the very day of the announcement? 

Let’s all sigh together.

Then, to add insult, Bezos brag-plaines about how hard it is to own The Washington Post while being so exquisitely rich. “When it comes to the appearance of conflict, I am not an ideal owner of The Post. Every day, somewhere, some Amazon executive or Blue Origin executive or someone from the other philanthropies and companies I own or invest in is meeting with government officials. I once wrote that The Post is a ‘complexifier’ for me. It is, but it turns out I’m also a complexifier for The Post.” 

But don’t worry, when it comes to journalistic objectivity, Jeff Bezos is coming to the rescue. “The stakes are too high,” he declares. “Now more than ever the world needs a credible, trusted, independent voice… To win this fight, we will have to exercise new muscles.”

Feel the burn, America.

The Falls Church Independent Endorses Kamala Harris for President

And, by the way. The Falls Church Independent endorses Kamala Harris for president. 

Why?

If Harris wins, the United States will gain a highly competent, highly qualified woman of color in the White House – an historic first that will be celebrated around the world – with years of experience as a prosecutor, state attorney general, U.S. Senator and Vice President of the United States. 

If Trump wins, however, the United States will return to power a corrupt, vindictive, autocratic, and increasingly unhinged old rapist who’s single term is marked by a record two impeachments, a loss of 2.9 million American jobs, a refusal to ensure a peaceful transition of power, and a ranking justly among the worst in American history.

There. How hard was that?