On newspaper 'non-endorsements'

The oligarchs are flexing their muscles. On the heels of stories that the owner of the Los Angeles Times killed an editorial supporting Kamala Harris for president, the Washington Post announced it would not be endorsing any candidate for president this year, or in the future.

So much for the Fourth Estate. So much for a Free Press.

These "non-endorsements" are bought and paid for by the greed of super rich people, afraid of losing some money and influence if they say something that might, heaven forbid, offend someone.

Something like maybe, "Don't vote for the incompetent, felonious, lying fascist, but rather vote for the competent, sensible, intelligent candidate. The country's future wel-being may hang in the balance."

In the most important presidential election of our lifetimes, the newspaper that drove Richard Nixon out of office is taking a pass because its owner, Jeff Bezos, is more afraid of what will happen to him if Donald Trump wins knowing that the Post endorsed Kamala Harris, than what will happen to everyone else in the country if Harris doesn't win.

You're on your own folks. We don't have an opinion. Except, the Post editorial board actually did have an opinion. Like the editorial board at the LA times, it was preparing to endorse Harris for president.

Instead, Will Lewis, the Post's chief executive, wrote, "The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election. We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates." Balderdash.

The Post has been endorsing presidential candidates since 1976.

This is where the politics of fear leads -- newspapers, protected by the Constitution, become fearful of performing their duty. Of course, if the fascist wins, that fear will exist every day. That's when greed and the desire to maintain power kick in. More silence. Look at today's Republican Party.

Editorial writers at the Post and the LA Times have resigned in protest, pointing out that this is not the time to remain silent. The Post editor resigned. Indeed, maintaining a position of neutrality in this election falsely suggests that there's no clear difference between the candidates, that they are pretty much alike, take your pick. We have an opinion on everything else, but this one's up to you. No biggie.

Patriotism apparently is not present in the Post's roots.

***

Full disclosure: In my 23-plus years writing editorials for The Times Herald-Record in Middletown, N.Y., we took a pass on one presidential election. It was the 2000 race between Al Gore and George W. Bush. There was no concern about fascism, criminal convictions, sexual assaults, fraud, lies, ignorance of government procedures, secret foreign alliances, threats of reprisal and obviously declining mental competence with either candidate. Just which one might be better for the country, Gore, the current vice president, or Bush, the son of a former president and a governor of Texas.

I preferred Gore, the Democrat. So did Mike Levine, the paper's editor. Gore was in keeping with the newspaper's liberal tradition editorially. However, Jim Moss, the publisher, preferred Bush, the Republican. Not entirely surprising since publishers tend to be more conservative.

Levine told Moss that I was going to write an editorial endorsing Gore for president. Moss said he wanted Bush. We asked why. His reasons didn't sway us. Our arguments for Gore had the same result on Moss.

Next Page  1  |  2

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).