Steven Feldstein
On October 25, The Washington Post dropped a bombshell on its readers, announcing that it would refrain from endorsing a presidential candidate in the upcoming election. Since 1976, when The Post backed Jimmy Carter, its editorial board had issued an endorsement for every presidential election. The news ignited a firestorm. Martin Baron, the former Post editor featured in the film “Spotlight” posted on X that the newspaper’s decision was “cowardice, with democracy as its casualty.” Famed Watergate reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein said this decision “ignores The Washington Post’s own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the treat Donald Trump poses to democracy.” It quickly emerged that The Washington Post’s billionaire tech owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, had personally decided to end the paper’s decades-long practice of endorsing presidential candidates. He became a special target of derision. Robert Kagan, who resigned from the paper’s editorial board following the announcement, characterized Bezos’ decision as “clearly a sign of pre-emptive favor currying with Trump.” Many were furious that a single individual could wield such power and muzzle one of America’s most prominent media outlets. But another narrative also took hold: Bezos’ decision to stop The Post’s endorsement indicated weakness. Bezos was so concerned about the consequences of publicly siding with Kamala Harris—in case Trump were to win reelection—that he preferred to use his power to suppress the paper’s voice than risk Trump’s ire. Bezos’ choice points to a larger question playing out today: Just how much power do tech titans wield?
No comments:
Post a Comment