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 …
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.
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.