I am truly heartbroken and torn to cancel my subscription. I feel I am abandoning and endangering the journalists I most respect and depend on. But I cannot support Bezos and Lewis in suppressing the Post endorsement of Kamala Harris for President.
I am truly heartbroken and torn to cancel my subscription. I feel I am abandoning and endangering the journalists I most respect and depend on. But I cannot support Bezos and Lewis in suppressing the Post endorsement of Kamala Harris for President.
Democracy Has Died in The Post C Suite
This is not the venerable Post returning to its roots. This is new Post bosses helping fascism take root in the United States - by killing off independent journalism. This is Jeff Bezos joining Elon Musk in perverting American media - preemptively capitulating and placing their bets and putting their fists on the scale for a TrumpProject2025ChristianNationalist win. Or worse.
Please Fact Check William Lewis' assertions concerning his decision to suppress the Editorial Board's endorsement of Kamala Harris for president.
Lewis asserts that his decision is:
1. "consistent with the values The Post has always stood for"
His decision is demonstrably inconsistent with the Post's past values and actions.
2. " Our job at The Washington Post is to provide through the newsroom nonpartisan news for all Americans, and thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers make up their own minds."
2a. Lewis elides the job of the Editorial Board
2b. Suppressing the Editorial Board's endorsement actually impedes readers' ability to make up our own minds by denying us the opinion of knowledgeable and trusted journalists.
3. "...our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent.
And that is what we are and will be."
Certainly it is WaPo's job to be independent.
Even presenting the appearance of self-policing as capitulation to threats by fascist powers is exactly the opposite of independence. And seeming to adopt the methods and advance to agenda of fascists is even worse.
I understand, that coming from Murdoch media, Lewis expects his consumers to swallow any swill wrapped in high minded sounding rhetoric. In this, Lewis reveals his: Murdochian modus operandi; disdain for journalistic ethics; ignorance of the notion of an independent press; and disregard for Washington Post journalists and readers. Most damning, Lewis asserts and appropriates the language and ideals of an independent press, while in fact negating those exact ideals. I believe George Orwell termed what Lewis is doing newspeak.
What you are doing when you cancel these news sources is cutting yourself off from excellent reporting and analysis in the process. If this is enough if a movement it jeopardizes the jobs of many good people and works to kill the papers or entities or force drastic change not necessarily good ones. I read here how people are going to rely on these substacks etc which use these primary sources! They link to them. Secondary sources and independent journalists, historians don’t and can’t cover everything of interest and importance. They too have bias. They too have a bottom line. It’s good to check primary and secondary sources to be well informed. You have to curate wisely. But here I read anger and the need to punish … Bezos Musk ( Amazon Twitter too? ) Murdoch, Sulzberger, etc and help further CHANNELING and Bias in this country.
I think that the Washington Post's veteran journalist, Dana Milbank, expressed how we may consider our relationship to this most valuable paper from a deeply considered perspective: 'Opinion Why I’m not quitting the Post And why I hope you don’t, either.' (excerpts)
On Thursday night, at the Pulitzer Prize Awards Ceremony in New York, my Post colleagues were feted for winning top honors in three categories. A series, assembled by more than 75 Post journalists on the AR-15’s singular capacity to kill, won for national reporting. And on the editorial side, The Post had a double win: In the commentary category, Vladimir Kara-Murza, writing from prison in Russia, won for his columns demanding democracy in his country; in the editorial writing category, David E. Hoffman won for his series on the “Annals of Autocracy” and the global battle for democracy.
Yet the next day, my colleagues and I were deluged with emails and messages from readers on social media. Many said they love our work but are canceling their subscriptions. Still others demanded that we all quit:
“Your lack of resignation is a silent endorsement of Donald Trump for President.”
“The Washington Post has gone from All The President's Men to All The Dictator's Lapdogs.”
What happened between Thursday night and Friday afternoon, of course, was the Post’s non-endorsement in the presidential race. As The Post reported, owner Jeff Bezos, in effect, directed the newspaper not to publish its endorsement of Kamala Harris.
I get the anger, and I share it. I helped organize the statement Post columnists published calling Bezos’s action “an abandonment of the fundamental editorial convictions of the newspaper that we love.” Most of my colleagues, I’m sure, agree with our revered former editor, Marty Baron, who called the decision “cowardice, with democracy as its casualty.” It’s certainly the owner’s prerogative to adopt a general no-endorsement policy, and it might well have been reasonable if it had been done outside of the political cycle (such endorsements long ago stopped swaying voters), but coming 11 days before the election, it gave the appearance of cowering before a wannabe dictator to protect Bezos’s business interests — particularly because Donald Trump met with executives from Bezos’s aerospace company, Blue Origin, the same day.
But I can’t endorse the calls to cancel The Post. Boycotting the newspaper won’t hurt Bezos, whose fortune comes not from Post subscribers but from Amazon Prime members and Whole Foods shoppers. His ownership and subsidization of The Post is just pocket change to him. And if readers want to strike a blow for democracy, they’d achieve more by knocking on doors and making calls for Harris for the next eight days. But boycotting The Post will hurt my colleagues and me. We lost $77 million last year, which required a(nother) round of staff cuts through buyouts. The more cancellations there are, the more jobs will be lost, and the less good journalism there will be. (WAPO, by Dana Milbank) See gifted link for the entire Opinion below.
Bezos saved the paper. But now he is being whacked around and rightfully so. We need the NYTimes and the Washington Post to survive as organizations that support American journalists and reporters. Their work reverberates here and abroad. We did not cancel either, but think it was a terrible transparent move by Bezos and probably "obeying in advance" as per Tim Snyder's comment on this. Whereas I have been thankful for Amazon and Whole Foods, no fool am I to cut myself off from what I need in this age of shops going out of business for vatious reasons and needing the convenience, I also indulge in criticizing those who do cancel just to "get even" with Bezos or the Times because they don't like one thing or another (headlines, stories editorials etc). The movement to cancel makes me think they are being lemmings. This side of the divide also has some unthinking going on and this is ironic.
To Lin and David: This is the only tool we have to use. Consider how Musk manipulates Starlink after talking to Putin and look how worried Bezos is to lose favor with The Bloated Yam. Scary
My cancellation letter to The Washington Post:
I am truly heartbroken and torn to cancel my subscription. I feel I am abandoning and endangering the journalists I most respect and depend on. But I cannot support Bezos and Lewis in suppressing the Post endorsement of Kamala Harris for President.
Democracy Has Died in The Post C Suite
This is not the venerable Post returning to its roots. This is new Post bosses helping fascism take root in the United States - by killing off independent journalism. This is Jeff Bezos joining Elon Musk in perverting American media - preemptively capitulating and placing their bets and putting their fists on the scale for a TrumpProject2025ChristianNationalist win. Or worse.
Please Fact Check William Lewis' assertions concerning his decision to suppress the Editorial Board's endorsement of Kamala Harris for president.
Lewis asserts that his decision is:
1. "consistent with the values The Post has always stood for"
His decision is demonstrably inconsistent with the Post's past values and actions.
2. " Our job at The Washington Post is to provide through the newsroom nonpartisan news for all Americans, and thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers make up their own minds."
2a. Lewis elides the job of the Editorial Board
2b. Suppressing the Editorial Board's endorsement actually impedes readers' ability to make up our own minds by denying us the opinion of knowledgeable and trusted journalists.
3. "...our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent.
And that is what we are and will be."
Certainly it is WaPo's job to be independent.
Even presenting the appearance of self-policing as capitulation to threats by fascist powers is exactly the opposite of independence. And seeming to adopt the methods and advance to agenda of fascists is even worse.
I understand, that coming from Murdoch media, Lewis expects his consumers to swallow any swill wrapped in high minded sounding rhetoric. In this, Lewis reveals his: Murdochian modus operandi; disdain for journalistic ethics; ignorance of the notion of an independent press; and disregard for Washington Post journalists and readers. Most damning, Lewis asserts and appropriates the language and ideals of an independent press, while in fact negating those exact ideals. I believe George Orwell termed what Lewis is doing newspeak.
Democracy has died in the Post C suite.
And that death threatens democracy itself.
Cancelled.
Lewis is ethically disqualified for the Editorial Board of a major news organization and Bezos knows it..
I'm not sure that Bezos has an ethos register himself.
👋🏼
can I copy that?
What you are doing when you cancel these news sources is cutting yourself off from excellent reporting and analysis in the process. If this is enough if a movement it jeopardizes the jobs of many good people and works to kill the papers or entities or force drastic change not necessarily good ones. I read here how people are going to rely on these substacks etc which use these primary sources! They link to them. Secondary sources and independent journalists, historians don’t and can’t cover everything of interest and importance. They too have bias. They too have a bottom line. It’s good to check primary and secondary sources to be well informed. You have to curate wisely. But here I read anger and the need to punish … Bezos Musk ( Amazon Twitter too? ) Murdoch, Sulzberger, etc and help further CHANNELING and Bias in this country.
I think that the Washington Post's veteran journalist, Dana Milbank, expressed how we may consider our relationship to this most valuable paper from a deeply considered perspective: 'Opinion Why I’m not quitting the Post And why I hope you don’t, either.' (excerpts)
On Thursday night, at the Pulitzer Prize Awards Ceremony in New York, my Post colleagues were feted for winning top honors in three categories. A series, assembled by more than 75 Post journalists on the AR-15’s singular capacity to kill, won for national reporting. And on the editorial side, The Post had a double win: In the commentary category, Vladimir Kara-Murza, writing from prison in Russia, won for his columns demanding democracy in his country; in the editorial writing category, David E. Hoffman won for his series on the “Annals of Autocracy” and the global battle for democracy.
Yet the next day, my colleagues and I were deluged with emails and messages from readers on social media. Many said they love our work but are canceling their subscriptions. Still others demanded that we all quit:
“Your lack of resignation is a silent endorsement of Donald Trump for President.”
“The Washington Post has gone from All The President's Men to All The Dictator's Lapdogs.”
What happened between Thursday night and Friday afternoon, of course, was the Post’s non-endorsement in the presidential race. As The Post reported, owner Jeff Bezos, in effect, directed the newspaper not to publish its endorsement of Kamala Harris.
I get the anger, and I share it. I helped organize the statement Post columnists published calling Bezos’s action “an abandonment of the fundamental editorial convictions of the newspaper that we love.” Most of my colleagues, I’m sure, agree with our revered former editor, Marty Baron, who called the decision “cowardice, with democracy as its casualty.” It’s certainly the owner’s prerogative to adopt a general no-endorsement policy, and it might well have been reasonable if it had been done outside of the political cycle (such endorsements long ago stopped swaying voters), but coming 11 days before the election, it gave the appearance of cowering before a wannabe dictator to protect Bezos’s business interests — particularly because Donald Trump met with executives from Bezos’s aerospace company, Blue Origin, the same day.
But I can’t endorse the calls to cancel The Post. Boycotting the newspaper won’t hurt Bezos, whose fortune comes not from Post subscribers but from Amazon Prime members and Whole Foods shoppers. His ownership and subsidization of The Post is just pocket change to him. And if readers want to strike a blow for democracy, they’d achieve more by knocking on doors and making calls for Harris for the next eight days. But boycotting The Post will hurt my colleagues and me. We lost $77 million last year, which required a(nother) round of staff cuts through buyouts. The more cancellations there are, the more jobs will be lost, and the less good journalism there will be. (WAPO, by Dana Milbank) See gifted link for the entire Opinion below.
https://wapo.st/3AfXD7m
Bezos saved the paper. But now he is being whacked around and rightfully so. We need the NYTimes and the Washington Post to survive as organizations that support American journalists and reporters. Their work reverberates here and abroad. We did not cancel either, but think it was a terrible transparent move by Bezos and probably "obeying in advance" as per Tim Snyder's comment on this. Whereas I have been thankful for Amazon and Whole Foods, no fool am I to cut myself off from what I need in this age of shops going out of business for vatious reasons and needing the convenience, I also indulge in criticizing those who do cancel just to "get even" with Bezos or the Times because they don't like one thing or another (headlines, stories editorials etc). The movement to cancel makes me think they are being lemmings. This side of the divide also has some unthinking going on and this is ironic.
To Lin and David: This is the only tool we have to use. Consider how Musk manipulates Starlink after talking to Putin and look how worried Bezos is to lose favor with The Bloated Yam. Scary
It hurt to cancel my 50+ year subscription. But there are other media outlets that are not compromised including many here on Substack.
Ditto.
Cancelled my WaPo subscription the day Bezos obeyed in advance.