JD Vance has a WaPo editorial today, titled something like, “100 Days of Bootlicking Our Lord and Master.”
I’m not feeling motivated to re-up.
The withholding of an endorsement for Harris certainly isn’t what caused her to lose the election and there is a legitimate argument that media outlets should not engage in openly partisan rhetoric such as endorsements so as to not appear to be openly biased regardless of a distinction between editorial opinion and factual reporting, but there is a more fundamental and quite pragmatic reason that the owners and publishers Washington Post (and the Los Angeles Times) should have allowed their editorial board to publish an endorsement beyond mere politics, and that is that Trump has openly attacked journalists and journalism at large, has called for the removal of protections that facilitate reporting and fact-checking, and used his political influence to threaten and extort specific news outlets for reporting factual information or giving time to views contrary to his. Standing up to this and advocating for a candidate who has not and would not conceivably engage in this type of behavior is advocating for journalistic integrity, and by ordering their editorial boards to withhold already drafted endorsements in contravention of long-established practice, the publishers and owners of those papers “obeyed in advance”, serving as example to others of compliance to autocracy; like the law firms who ended up pledging hundreds of millions of pro bono work for the Trump regime under duress of being denied physical access to federal building, they have created a precedent of cooperation whenever they are put to a test.
After the endorsement was pulled by William Lewis, I too argued that the Post was still doing good journalism and it was worthwhile to support that (especially as it isn’t as if this is “putting money in Bezos’ pockets” as he has been losing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year since purchasing the paper)…and then the Post published—in contravention to previous administrations—endorsements for all but four of Trump’s cabinet and independent agency nominees, some of whom were so obviously unqualified that the endorsement consistent of one indifferent sentence and a thumps up. Elsewhere the Post has spiked both editorials and stories that were judged as being too unfavorable, and has been hemorrhaging journalists who themselves see that it is no longer a stalwart supporter of journalistic freedom even if it does sometimes publish criticisms of Trump and his regime.
If you want to continue to subscribe to the Post by all means do so; they do still have hardworking journalists trying to maintain their integrity and provide factually correct and important stories about all manner of news, including stories that show Trump, Elon Musk, et cetera in an unfavorable light. But it has lost credibility and the confidence that it will stand up to opposition the way it did with attempts to shut down publication of the Watergate scandal or the Pentagon Papers, and Jeff Bezos’ claims to be hands off with respect to editorial independence are as hollow as is pledge to give away nearly all of his wealth to charity even as he hides most of it behind a private foundation and uses every legal dodge to avoid paying taxes.
The irony of these tech bros who pharmacologically ‘man up’ their physicality and performatively engage in Brazilian jujitsu or hunting big game (aided and protected by guides who actually know what they are doing) is what literal invertebrates they are when it comes to anything that threatens their stature or wealth, or in the case of Bezos, his ability to get government contracts to support Blue Origin. What is even worse is just how short-sighted this cowardice is; Bezos’ fortunes are going to contract significantly when Amazon (which comprises the vast majority of his assessed wealth) can no longer import cheap shit from China without paying double or triple digit tariffs, and Elon Musk is certainly going to squeeze Blue Origin from any major contracts. In being performatively compliant he’s basically made a deal to protect his interests from political attack in the short term that is going to hurt his business and entire customer base in the future, and for someone like Bezos whose well-deserved reputation for foreseeing how things will unfold, it comes off as fearful deference to a self-described despot. Ditto for Zuckerberg. What a bunch of fucking babies these “Titans of Technology” are.
Stranger
I assumed that you were just making this up entirely, since I read today’s print edition carefully. You’re talking about an editorial that appeared in the online edition at 4:00 AM this morning. That’s too late to appear in the print edition for today. The Washington Post publishes editorials of various sorts, some of which are like the one you mention. If you read the news in it, you’ll see that there’s none that is pro-Trump. Read the news each day carefully and you’ll see that none of those articles support any of the claims of Trump and his supporters.
Bezos bought the Post in 2013, when the paper was already hurting from the dying nature of print journalism. I firmly believe it would be out of business today if he hadn’t done that. Whatever I do now has to weigh that fact against later developments. Bezos’ interference with the opinion side is odious. That can - even should - be a deciding factor in peoples’ opinions.
I support print journalism, actual journalism, first and foremost. I donate to The Guardian and subscribe to the Guardian Weekly. I subscribe to The Economist. I had a long-time subscription to Time magazine but let it run out because they no longer do enough journalism to warrant the money. I subscribe to the New York Times.
I don’t personally need the Washington Post. I do believe that the Washington Post is needed as a bastion of Washington journalism. Losing it would leave behind a giant hole that would be filled by Newsmax and One America and the Daily Caller and their ilk. We can’t afford that.
I’m madder that Bezos keeps hiring incompetent people on the business side who can’t seem to find a way to may money and turn around the business the way the Times has. Maybe there’s no longer room for more than one major national newspaper, but I’d prefer to see at least some competition. (The WSJ and USA Today are national but not true competition for the Times.) As long as the journalism remains first rate and as committed to exposing what the current administration is doing in ways that make it an influential leader that others follow I’m good with my decision to continue supporting it. If things change, I’ll re-examine my thoughts.
One current thought. In today’s world you have to expect to be disappointed by the people purportedly on your side. If I couldn’t stand that I’d have to stop being a Democrat. Those spineless, feckless, pusillanimous dastards let me down every day. But what’s the alternative? And how much harm would I be doing if I stopped supporting them?
The world crushes idealists. I will not be crushed.
I apologize for the confusion: while the headline obviously wasn’t what I claimed, JD Vance did write a bootlicking editorial for today’s WaPo (apparently online-only).
I recognize that their news department isn’t corrupted, but the editorial position is so corrupted that, coupled with Bezos’s ownership, the institution is fundamentally damaged in my opinion. I’ll no longer give them money: my media dollars have transferred to NPR and The Guardian.
I think the letters and editorials are quite varied. I don’t worry about them. I knew, of course, that you were joking about the precise title of Vance’s editorial. The news section of The Washington Post and other sources I check occasionally tell me plenty about Trump, and I can tell that what he’s doing isn’t good for anyone.
The advice columnist???