Content of the article

The Washington Post — who marked the first Trump administration by adding the motto: “Democracy dies in darkness” to his head — prepared an editorial in which he endorsed Kamala Harris. Its owner, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, killed it, saying the paper would not endorse any candidate, now or ever.

An incandescent fury ensued. The staff resigned. About 200,000 readers have canceled their subscriptions. Writers writing about writers got their hands on what Post writers weren’t writing.

Content of the article

The level of outrage was like Amazon doing away with free shipping, except it targeted far fewer people. Bezos rushed out his own editorial to explain himself entitled“The Hard Truth: Americans Don’t Trust the Media.”

He argued that too many readers thought the media was biased, and editorial endorsements tended to confirm that view, while having zero impact on voters. So, best to ditch them altogether.

Bezos has denied that he killed the Post’s endorsement of Harris because he wants favors for his companies from a future Trump administration.

“When it comes to the appearance of a conflict, I am not the ideal owner of The Post,” Bezos wrote. “Every day, somewhere, some (executives) from … the philanthropies and companies they own or invest in are meeting with government officials,” he wrote. “The post office is a “complexer” for me. It is, but it turns out I’m also a typewriter for The Post.”

“You can see my wealth and business interests as a bulwark against intimidation, or you can see them as a web of conflicting interests.”

It’s the point Donald Trump has been making for nine years; his personal wealth makes him immune to pressure from the big donor. If he was dependent on the Republican donor class, they would have cut him off and pushed him long ago. Many progressives who loathe him would have preferred him to be less independent so that big money would have more influence.

Content of the article

Content of the article

The Democratic donor class demonstrated that power this summer with brutal efficiency, cashing in on an incumbent president and installing Harris as a replacement, despite the fact that she never won a single vote in a primary.

The same writers who were lamenting that big money Bezos kept them from endorsing Harris would never have had Harris to back him, if big money Democrats hadn’t rejected the choice of Democratic primary voters. So big money is ambiguous.

Bezos keeps the money-losing Post afloat. His fortune supports a historic title and provides journalism of a certain quality. Without Bezos, the Post’s output would be more affected than it already is by celebrity gossip. Daily Mail is the number one news site in the world – and monetized fury podcasting and YouTube traders.

Are Bezos and his wealth good for journalism or bad? Democracies need news, reporting rather than commentary. If the market does not provide it adequately, who will? Philanthropists are an answer. The generous ones. The Post lost $77 million last year.

Government is another option. This was, in part, Canada’s response, with federal government subsidies paid to media companies, including Postmedia. Many voices condemned this, fearing it meant government control – or at least, subsidized journalists pulling their punches for fear of losing government money.

Content of the article

There is more logic to this than evidence – it does National Post suddenly become friendly with Trudeau? Stephen Harper signed checks for the CBC for nine years. Did that influence their reporting?

Someone has to pay for the news. Readers paid only a part. The local papers had a quasi-monopoly on reaching readers, siphoning huge amounts of advertising from every supermarket, car dealer and cinema in town, with fat editions landing on the front porch daily.

The imagined promise of the digital world was that many readers paying small sums would make up for the demise of the big advertisers. It was only feasible for very few prominent titles – none at all The Washington Post.

Relatively few journalists, who run small shops, produce high-quality commentary that finds a paying audience. But there is little reporting – which is expensive – and the news generated is small compared to what was once produced by metro newsrooms.

It has been thirty-six years since Noam Chomsky published Production Consent. The left then argued against a “corporate media” that supported a system of government that in turn protected and promoted financial interests. Now, “corporate media” is a term used more by the right, for the same reasons.

Content of the article

The business model of mass media has changed radically; the digital age seeks not to produce consent, but the opposite, dividing readers and viewers into ever-smaller segments of shared outrage.

Journalists don’t like being subsidized by the government. They don’t like having a billionaire owner who can call the shots, even if he rarely does. But the payers of choice, discount advertising chicks or the latest rom-com, no longer pay.

Has quality journalism become like the arts, supported by a combination of subscribers, government subsidies and philanthropy? Has the news become like hockey arenas and international sporting events, where public money is deployed for the purpose of contributing to an undefined but deeply felt public good?

The rage against Bezos is a protest against a philanthropic media model. But in many places where there is no Bezos-like benefactor, the voices of protest are long gone.

National Post

Content of the article