Newspapers at the Tipping Point

THIS ISN’T POLITICAL.

I don’t talk about politics online. If you know me then you already know where I stand — and if you don’t know me, then you really shouldn’t give a shit what I think. Hell, I barely give a shit what I think.

But like I said, this isn’t political, so I hope you’ll indulge me.

Over the past few days, both the Washington Post and my hometown Los Angeles Times announced they would not endorse any candidate for US President. Correction: the billionaire owners of the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times announced that their publications would not endorse any candidate for US President.

That’s their right, of course. They can do whatever they want.

A newspaper endorsement usually represents the owner’s point of view. Owners can also choose not to endorse at all. I understand why members of both the Post and Times were upset by this decision, and why others resigned in protest — a newspaper should (used to) rise to the highest standards of ethics and integrity. By that criteria alone, the choice in this election is obvious.

But again, I’m not going to be political. There are plenty of places to go for that stuff.

I’m not going to be political, but what the Post and Times owners did absolutely was. And by deciding not to say anything, they spoke volumes.

This wasn’t a moral or ethical choice. This wasn’t about being impartial or unbiased. Both papers still endorse other national and local candidates and will continue to do so.

No, this was about two men who, less than two weeks before a coin-flip election, decided to hedge their bets and not piss off a potential President who has promised revenge against anyone who goes against him.

Jeff Bezos, who owns the Washington Post, and Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, who owns the Los Angeles Times, made a business decision, not a values-based one. They don’t care about journalism— I personally believe they never did — they just care about not falling into disfavor with a certain administration. A Chamberlain-esque move that sets a dangerous precedent.

Endorsements from either paper weren’t going to change the outcome of the election. They weren’t going to change people’s minds. But to paraphrase a line from the musical Hamilton, if you stand for nothing then what will you fall for?

I was a newspaper journalist and proud of it. I’m not sure I’d be proud today. I could accept newspapers closing, pages thinning, circulations dropping. I wasn’t happy about it but I could accept it. Economies change and businesses need to adapt.

But I can’t accept cowardice. I can’t accept appeasement of principle. I can’t accept silence when every voice needs to be heard.

This isn’t political, it’s personal. This isn’t about politics, it’s about the Body Politic.

In 2010, I published a book called “The Last Newspaper,” an analysis of both the industry’s decline and the bright spots that would grow in the decades to come as information atoms gave way to bits. I ended the book with the promise that “Where there is journalism, there is hope.” And I shared the following idea, immortalized in 1908 by Walter Williams, first dean of my alma mater, the Missouri School of Journalism:

“The public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; and that acceptance of a lesser service is a betrayal of this trust.”

Bezos and Soon-Shiong betrayed that trust. And in doing so, betrayed all of us.