The editorial was already prepared. The opinion section of The Washington Post He planned to ask to vote for <a href="http://www.world-today-news.com/donald-trump-whats-behind-the-us-presidents-baltimore-attack/" title="Donald Trump: What's behind the US President's Baltimore attack”>Kamala Harris against Donald Trump in the presidential elections on November 5. However, the owner of the newspaper, billionaire Jeff Bezos, the second richest man in the world, has decided that the newspaper should stop expressly supporting any of the options, as it has been doing for half a century. The newspaper’s managers present it as a return to the roots. Its former director, Martin Baron, does not see it that way: “This is cowardice, with democracy as a victim. Donald Trump will see this as an invitation to further intimidate his owner, Jeff Bezos, (and others). “Disturbing cowardice in an institution famous for its bravery,” has written. The decision, which follows a similar one adopted by the owner of Los Angeles Times, It has caused discomfort in the editorial office.
The CEO of the publishing company, William Lewis, has explained the decision in an article published in the media itself. “The Washington Post will not support any presidential candidate in these elections. Nor in any future presidential election. We return to our origins of not supporting presidential candidates,” his column begins.
Lewis cites articles in which the editorial board explained in 1960 that the newspaper’s tradition was not to support any of the candidates, a tradition that was exceptionally broken in 1952, when the newspaper called for the vote for Dwight Eisenhower. In 1976, however, he began the new tradition of speaking out explicitly, on that occasion in favor of Jimmy Carter. Since then, the newspaper has supported one candidate or another in each presidential election, but Lewis believes that the correct decision was not to get involved.
“We recognize that this will be interpreted in various ways, as tacit support for one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That’s inevitable. We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values that the Post has always stood for and what we expect from a leader: character and courage in the service of the American ethic, reverence for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects. “We also see it as a statement of support for our readers’ ability to decide for themselves this most important of American decisions: who to vote for as the next president,” Lewis argues.
“Our work in The Washington Post is to provide through the newsroom unbiased news for all Americans, and thought-provoking insights from our opinion team that help our readers form their own opinions. Above all, our job as a newspaper in the capital of the most important country in the world is to be independent,” concludes the CEO, whose appointment has been accompanied by controversy.
Lewis, a veteran of London’s conservative newspapers, tried to appoint Robert Winnett, deputy editor of the paper, as editor of the paper. The Daily Telegraph, medium in which both agreed. However, an investigation by his own Washington Post about his adventures caused the signing to derail.
In addition to Lewis’s opinion column, The newspaper itself has published information about its decision. In it, citing anonymous sources, he assures that those in charge of the editorial page had already written a draft supporting Harris, but it had not yet been published. It also says that the decision to stop publishing support for presidential candidates was made by the owner of the Post, the founder of Amazon, Jeff Bezos, according to said information.
Internal indignation
According to that source, the decision has outraged many members of the newspaper’s opinion section, which works independently of the news editorial team. Nine of the newspaper’s columnists have co-signed a very critical opinion article: “The decision of The Washington Post Not giving your support to the presidential campaign is a terrible mistake. It represents an abandonment of the core editorial beliefs of the newspaper we love, and for which we have worked for a total of 228 years. This is a moment for the institution to make clear its commitment to democratic values, the rule of law and international alliances, and the threat Donald Trump poses to them — the precise points The Post made in endorsing Trump’s opponents. in 2016 and 2020―. There is no contradiction between the important role of The Post as an independent newspaper and its practice of giving its political support, both as a matter of guidance to readers and as a statement of fundamental beliefs. This has never been more true than in the current campaign. An independent newspaper could one day give up supporting the presidential elections. But this is not the time when a candidate defends positions that directly threaten freedom of the press and the values of the Constitution,” they write.
Unrest has also spread in the news editorial staff. The newspaper’s union has published a harsh statement showing its deep concern in this regard. “The role of an editorial board is precisely this: to share opinions on news that affects our society and culture and to support candidates to help guide readers. The message from our CEO, Will Lewis—not from the editorial board itself—leads us to believe that management interfered with the work of our editorial board members. According to our own reporters and Guild members [el sindicato]support for Harris had already been drafted, and the decision not to publish it was made by the owner of The Post, Jeff Bezos. We are already seeing cancellations from once loyal readers. “This decision undermines the work of our members at a time when we should be building the trust of our readers, not losing it,” dice.
“Exhibit of cowardice”
“There is no way to look at this other than as an appalling display of cowardice and a dereliction of public duty,” has written in The Guardian For her part, Margaret Sullivan, who was a media columnist in the Post and reader advocate The New York Times. “All of this may seem like non-partisan neutrality, or have that intention, but it is far from it. First, it is a shameful slap in the face to the editorial staff of both newspapers, which has done important work exposing the dangers of Trump for many years,” he argues. “It is also a strong statement of preference. Newspaper leaders have made it clear that they either love Trump (who is, after all, a boon to vast personal fortunes) or they do not want to risk the former president’s wrath and retaliation if he wins. If the latter has been a factor, it is based on a short-sighted judgment, since Trump has been a danger to press rights and would only become emboldened in a second term,” he adds.
It is the second major American newspaper to make a similar decision in a matter of days. Earlier this week, Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire owner of Los Angeles Times, blocked his editorial board’s plan to ask for the vote for Harris. The decision led to the resignation of the newspaper’s editorial manager and two other members of the editorial board.
“As the owner, I am on the editorial board and I shared with our editors the idea that maybe this year we could dedicate a column, a page, two pages, if we want, to all the pros and all the cons and let the readers decide ”Soon-Shiong declared in an interview given Thursday to Spectrum News reported by the Associated Press. The magnate said he feared that supporting a candidate would contribute to the division of the country.
