Again, I want to be clear. It’s not that they “can’t”, it’s that I think they probably “shouldn’t”.
And well, for the president at least, stories about them are so ubiquitous, and their actions so influential for all Americans, that an endorsement might be seen as a potential source of bias in a significant portion of the newspaper’s coverage. Because, really, an endorsement of a presidential candidate is effectively an endorsement of their political party, and almost any world or national news story is going to have a political component to it. Readers are going to remember that endorsement and wonder how it is affecting such news coverage.
I don’t think the same can be said for an endorsement for a local municipal court judge for example. They just don’t have the same influence or the same coverage, and readers aren’t going to be reminded of the paper’s endorsement when reading the latest coverage from Gaza, or have the perception that the endorsement is somehow coloring the paper’s reporting. So I think that type of endorsement has far less chance of compromising people’s belief in the impartiality of the news reporting.
I think just the opposite. I think that the reporters who are the most knowledgeable about the issues are well positioned to state an opinion right before an election as to which candidate or ballot vote makes more sense, at this moment in time.
It’s probably least valuable for the president, honestly. But that doesn’t make it wrong to do it.
And while i respect a media source that never endorses candidates, it’s craven to decide to withdraw an endorsement immediately before an election.
Just to be clear they didn’t actually say this, what they said was that a president can’t be held criminally responsible for what he does in office. They can still rein in his powers while he’s there. As awful as they are I don’t think that they would accept such a blatant violation of the first amendment. Now Trump could always pull a Jackson and ask them how they are going to stop him, but he could do that with any supreme court.
I agree completely with this post and was considering starting a thread with a similar post as its premise.
Reading the 2025 manifesto it reminds me of a plan for a heist with entries like “Micky is going to take care of the dogs by feeding them steak laced with sedatives”, and “the guard takes a break every night at exactly 12:35 and it takes him 12 minutes to eat his sandwich and finish the Jumble puzzle”.
If you accept their premises then its a valid plan, but their premises are largely based on a world view that is contrary to reality. They imagine that its government bureaucrats that are the problem and that by eliminating them everything will suddenly work better, and they imagine that were it not for the lies of the liberal media everyone would support them.
If they follow the 2025 playbook it won’t lead to dictatorship it will just lead to a giant clusterfuck, at which point some of their more swing members in the senate will get cold feet and stop rubber stamping their bills.
A second Trump administration will be really really bad but it wont be the dictatorship that is desired/feared by the right/left.
I think shutting down The Post is the least of Bezos’ concerns. Trump could very well decide that the Blue Origin company needs to be nationalized for national security reasons, and overseen by the new head of NASA, Elon Musk.
Or, Trump may decide that Amazon is “too big”, and order it broken up and sold. The pieces of which would undoubtedly end up in the pockets of his supporters/sycophants.
Think of what Putin did - that’s likely the Trump model going forward. He’ll just have the added extra step of taking companies first, before giving them to his friends. The Supreme Court says that if the President does it, it’s not a crime.
I’ve read that the editorial board decided to endorse Kamala Harris and even had the endorsement written before the decision was made. So in that sense, yes, the endorsement was withdrawn.
come on. I mean, I understand the situation. The editorial board wanted to endorse Kamala, they planned to endorse Kamala, and they had (reportedly, supposedly) written the endorsement. But it was never published. Thus, in no “sense” was it withdrawn. We don’t need to strain the meaning of words to the breaking point here in order to make the point. The point is well understood by everyone already.
The largest of those camps held somewhat less than 20k people, and all of the camps together only housed about 120k Japanese Americans. Setting up multiple camps on the scale of this proposed mass deportation, even temporarily, would dwarf that effort. One of the (previously extreme right-wing) conspiracy theories about the Federal Emergency Management Agency is that it was set up to do this sort of thing, and yet we can see how it fumbles every single time to respond to natural disasters dislocating even a few tens of thousands of people. Only the US Army Corps of Engineers could construct any kind of camp on the scale of housing tens of thousands of people relatively quickly, and they are so strapped for personnel and funds that it could only build such large camps serially.
All of this is, of course, in addition to the massive logistical problem of rounding up undocumented immigrants, transporting them to “internment facilities”, processing them in some way, and then pressuring other countries to accept them or…otherwise somehow coming to some disposition for “internees”, and not accounting for the economic impacts of such an action, i.e. removing low wage agricultural and construction workers from the labor market. It’s such a fundamentally, obtusely, idiotically unworkable scheme that it would almost be entertaining to watch them try if it didn’t mean creating the mass incidence of human misery and economic disruption it would cause.
The editorial board of a paper is typically the group that determines endorsements (or elects to not endorse a candidate). For the billionaire owner of the Washington Post to direct the publisher and CEO to refuse the editorial board’s desire to publish an endorsement, especially in the case of one candidate expressing nakedly autocratic ambitions and the intent to persecute political opponents, is an exceptional and disturbing choice from a news outlet that is still (for now) regarded as a bastion of journalistic freedom.
When my daughter was like six, I taught her the phrase “irrelevant correction,” due to her propensity to bring a conversation to a screeching halt to correct some completely minor and irrelevant detail in what someone said.
It’s a valuable lesson.
In what way is your correction relevant or meaningful?
I don’t know. I mean, I guess just about as relevant and meaningful as Dewey_Finn’s insistence that, in some tortured context of the word, the Post’s actions really could be construed as some sort of withdrawn endorsement. I can’t respond to someone who replied to me?
When you’re correcting someone and you don’t know whether the correction is relevant or meaningful, you shouldn’t correct them. My six year old understood this and became a better conversationalist for it.
All I can say to the first part of your post – and only because this is the Pit – is … the Third Reich made it work … on a smaller, but proportionate, scale.
They arrived at simplified and ‘final’ solutions to logistical challenges – solutions that suited their aims just fine.
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”
“Hey, what about those disused military bases? They’ve got fences around them, right? Buildings in them? Just send the busloads there and dump 'em. Whaddaya mean, food, water, shelter, sanitary facilities? Who cares? We’re throwing 'em outta the county anyway.”
Eleven days before the election, after the editors had already written it, and after it was clear to the editorial board and the owners what it was.
That’s withdrawing it.
The point that the endorsement, after it was already written and about to go into print, was quashed by management against the will of the paper’s editors is indeed understood by just about everyone already. You’re the one who’s straining the meaning of words in an attempt to claim that this was OK.
Could they have decided a month from now, or a year ago when the candidates were uncertain, that they weren’t doing any more endorsements in specific races, including producing a list of what offices they would endorse for and why those and not the others? Sure. That wouldn’t have been withdrawing anything, and probably wouldn’t have drawn anything more than an occasional grumble.
Anyway, if Jeff Bezos is truly eager to please the Emperor, he could always offer up his Amazon warehouses—numerous and large in scale—as processing centers for those Trump wants to deport. It’s true that Bezos’ profits would take a big hit—but if that’s the way to regain the dictator’s favor, then he might swallow the loss. (It’s not as though he’s going to need to go on food stamps anytime soon.)