An "independent" newspaper should never be endorsing political candidates.
Also, I am neither left nor right wing, as I'm a libertarian. I believe in the principles in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the system of checks and balances set up by the Constitution.
Libertarians are, first and foremost, cowards. Trying to get them to actually tell you their political views is like trying to extract sugar from a stick of gum. There's no point in trying, just assume they're being dishonest about their positions on democracy and assume they'll vote for the candidate who threatens democracy.
This election is already, more or less, completely fucked. Nobody is really approaching it in a reasonable way. Everyone, even on the left to an extent, just pretends that Trump hasn't repeatedly and continuously tried to threaten democracy. Instead, we're talking about who cackles more or how black Kamala is. So, at this point don't bother. Those who understand the threat to the US' legitimacy understand it, and those who don't, don't.
Many people have complained here about my political views, and dang has appealed to me to dial it down.
Their question would have been the same if they had asked it a a year ago before Trump was even the Republican nominee for President.
Would you have said then you want to spare everyone from a Trump vs. Nikki Haley debate? Or a Trump vs. Ted Cruz debate? Or a Trump vs. Ron DeSantis debate?
You are assuming the explanation must be (1), but how can you know that it isn't (2) or (3) or both instead?
Just because something is or isn’t a sufficient reason in your mind, doesn’t mean it is or isn’t one in the mind of Bezos. He’s making decisions based on different information, evidence, advisors, life experiences, values, etc. Also, you are judging it with the benefit of hindsight
> and ~60 year old traditions,
It isn’t a 60 year old tradition. Regular endorsements only started with their 1976 endorsement of Carter, which was only 48 years ago. And WaPo didn’t endorse either candidate in the 1988 election, which was only 36 years ago. It also endorsed Eisenhower in 1952 (72 years ago), but that was more of a once-off (they endorsed neither Truman nor Dewey in 1948; and despite endorsing Eisenhower over Stevenson in 1952, WaPo endorsed neither in their 1956 rematch.)
> causing a LARGE drop in subscriber numbers.
I don’t think Bezos was expecting that. I’m sure he was expecting some blowback, but I suspect he wasn’t expecting it to be this big. If he had foreseen it, would he have made a different decision? I don’t know.
From what I’ve read, it sounds like Bezos and his WaPo executives had been planning a move like this for a while, but the disagreement was over timing - the executives wanted to wait until after the election to discontinue the tradition of presidential endorsements, Bezos decided he didn’t want to wait.
For this reason alone they have a good logical reason to endorse Harris.
Also, in this day and age it's impossible to be politically neutral. Especially the extreme-right makes such absurd claims that any serious paper would not publish them because they're simply untrue. This automatically pushes them into the other camp.
Anyway I think it's very poor showing that they caved to pressure from Bezos, however it's pretty clear which way the Washington Post leans. They don't need to endorse a candidate because we already know their opinion (especially in light of the list they have made above).
No newspaper can claim to be independent. The WaPo's slogan is "Democracy Dies in Darkness". This, in and of itself consists of multiple political statements (ex: Democracy is important, information is crucial to the health of a democracy).
No article is ever free of bias. But endorsing candidates means they don't even try.
An independent news outfit would publish editorials in pairs - one on each side. Wouldn't you find that more interesting? I would.
Like the old "Firing Line" TV show.
I'm not sure how to politely say more.
True, but there's value in making an effort. And in this particular case, there are only 2 candidates that matter.
> I'm not sure how to politely say more.
Feel free to be as rude as you like.
Which is kind of the point. You are sort of arguing that the things you personally are comfortable with are good and that newspapers should do them, and the things you do not like are bad, and they shouldn't do them. But you are making value judgments, not spitting truths.
See, the whole independence thing is pre-requisite on no one the fuck else influencing you. Which means that yeah, sometimes you get up to things others wish you wouldn't. Without a Press willing and capable of muckraking where everyone who funds them/makes their work possible wishes they wouldn't, there is literally no capital P Press. It is no longer a thing. Period. The machine and company, and assets might be there. Journalists might be running around, but it isn't fulfilling the purpose of the Free Press.
Which isn't, btw, being a mouthpiece for funders. It's keeping everyone aware of what's going on. Even in spite of people really wishing you wouldn't.
Because that's what the absolute position you are taking is. The editorial board of a newspaper isn't different in that sense than a letter to the editor.
By way of word count, I expect the average editorial board is much more evenly divided than the crank letters that they choose not to publish.
Now you're arguing the definitions of words, pretending to not understand. No thanks.