Dr.Strangelove:
Just that, taken at face value, his editorial is absolutely correct IMO. There is a serious media credibility problem, and to solve it it’s not enough to simply be right on all stories. You have to be believable at the same time. Endorsements damage that credibility even when they’re “right”.
I’m reposting this from this thread because it is the same response to this stupid argument:
Getting back to the topic at hand, the notion that the editorial board of the Washington Post endorsing Kamala Harris is creating the perception of ‘liberal bias’ in their hard news reporting that is pushing away conservative news consumers is so obtuse it is hard to begin describing how wrong that is. Setting aside the fact that the Washington Post gives editorial column inches to not only conservative (if anti-Trump) commentator George Will but also to Trump flag bearers Marc A. Thiessen and Hugh Hewitt would seem to obviate the basis of that claim. The reality is that most conservatives (and all Trump advocates) aren’t seeking non-biased news sources; instead, they are embracing those with very evident biases in the direction that supports their views like Fox News, OANN, Newsmax, et cetera, which are perfectly happy to not only endorse Trump but spread obvious propaganda and easily fact-checked lies for him at every opportunity.
Even if the Washington Post hadn’t established the precedent of regularly endorsed a candidate for the presidency for the last four decades one can argue that they should do so now because while you might argue that they shouldn’t have a bias for a particular political viewpoint, they should have a bias for fact and integrity (as well as, I would argue, for maintaining and strengthening democratic institutions which includes a free press performing investigative journalism and publishing editorial criticism), and in this case there is a clear distinction in this regard between one candidate who is essentially honest and has a long history in service of democratic institutions, and the other who not only lies so reflexively that he can’t even keep them straight or coherent and has a long record of corruption but actively incited insurrection and tried to interfere with fair election processes, and who by he way has expressed naked ambition to be a dictator. For the publisher and owner of the Washington Post to ignore the paper’s editorial board intent to endorse Harris is not only an unconscionable and unethical act but it is also an abrogation of the one principle that a newspaper or medial outlet should fundamentally stand for; informing the public about an imminent danger to civil society and democratic freedom.
Bezos is a fucking coward who is also undermining the essential purpose of a news outlet, and if he doesn’t want the personaly liability of letting the editorial board express their collective business then he shouldn’t be in the business of owning a newspaper. Unless, of course, he just wants to turn it into a promotional outlet for his main business interests which also occasionally publish pictures of him looking like a freaky mannequin in a flight suit and cowboy hat. But CNN.com already does that so readily I don’t know why he’d even bother losing money on a side hustle with a long history of needling political figures at all ends of the spectrum.
Stranger