Legacy media bailing on Harris?

Are legacy media bailing on Kamala Harris? Or are their owners getting cold feet about presiding over opposition media during a Trump administration? Earlier this week, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, owner of the Los Angeles Times, decided against a full-throated endorsement of Harris. That decision – for whatever motive – turns out to be only the first. Now Jeff Bezos, owner of Amazon, Blue Origin, and The Washington Post, has made a decision with identical effect. And the closest thing America has to a government organ, has, in so many words, called the trend cowardly.

Latest legacy media organ to decline to endorse Harris

Hints that The Washington Post would not endorse Harris dropped yesterday morning (October 24). The New York Post reported, shortly before noon, that several Washington Post employees noticed a “delay” in the endorsement. The Post got the story from a newsletter calling itself Status the day before. Status reported that anonymous sources inside the editorial board were wondering why the Washington Post wasn’t endorsing anyone, less than two weeks out.

Most of the Status story lies behind a paywall. But the New York Post reported the details. The Washington Post editorial board had a Harris endorsement drafted, but owner Jeff Bezos and CEO Will Lewis had not yet given permission to publish. And the board wanted to know why.

Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit thought he knew why. Jeff Bezos doesn’t much want to be an opposition editor during a second Trump administration. In fact, Oliver Darcy at Status put the matter more bluntly:

It is not as if these newspapers have a particularly difficult decision before them. On one side is an Adolf Hitler-praising autocratic-wannabe who has vowed to seek retribution against his perceived enemies, should he find himself back in the Oval Office. On the other side is a relatively run-of-the-mill Democratic politician who respects the rule of law and American democratic order.

The Post’s editorial board certainly sees it like that. Oliver Darcy

In America, public figures – particularly candidates for elected office and officeholders seeking reelection – have neither standing nor recourse against libel. Such is the price for having a First Amendment, which reads in relevant part:

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom … of the press.

In any event, not one person alleged to have been present when – as former White House Chief of Staff John Kelly alleged – Donald Trump said he wanted the kinds of generals Hitler had, will attest to any such remarks from Trump.

A broader legacy media phenomenon

But Hoft linked to a Fox News Channel story that said, more broadly, that legacy media organs everywhere are not endorsing Presidential candidates in the numbers that they once did. The ratio of Democratic to Republican endorsements has held to a narrow range between 8:1 and 12:1. But the numbers of endorsing papers has declined precipitously. Democratic endorsements went from more than 240 in 2016, down to 120 in 2020 – and 80 thus far this year. Republican endorsements went from 20 to 14 to “less than 10.” (But today the New York Post did endorse Trump. They showed a picture of him on its cover with the caption BACK TO THE FUTURE.)

The decision by the Los Angeles Times – or at least its owner – to make no endorsement, could fit that mold. But that doesn’t satisfy other prominent editorialists on the left.

A definite decision

This morning – according to anonymous sources this time reporting to National Public Radio (NPR) – The Washington Post definitely decided not to endorse Harris. Those same sources say the order came from Jeff Bezos, and CEO Will Lewis announced it on his own authority.

NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik put the story out this morning, with an update this afternoon. The timeline, as Folkenflik got it from his sources, is as follows. Early in October, the editorial board began drafting an endorsement of Harris. David Shipley, editorial page editor, approved the endorsement, but said Mr. Bezos was reviewing it. But early this week – or perhaps earlier – Mr. Bezos decided against the endorsement. Mr. Lewis announced the neutrality posture after “a tense meeting” of the Editorial Board. Lewis published his own opinion piece explaining the decision.

We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates. Will Lewis, CEO

Mr. Lewis was referring to The Washington Post’s pre-1976 neutrality policy. In 1976, the Post endorsed Jimmy Carter. It has endorsed every Democrat since, except only for Michael Dukakis in 1988. But this time, Mr. Shipley said he wished to create an “independent space” in which the newspaper would not tell readers for whom to vote.

Robert Kagan, editor-at-large, resigned today in protest. Former Executive Editor Martin Baron said in a statement:

This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty. Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.

This afternoon, the chief technical officer blocked all questions about the decision from submission to the site’s AI search engine.

The Washington Post Guild dropped a statement and five-post thread denouncing the decision. They said readers were already canceling subscriptions.

A statement from Post Guild leadership on the Washington Post's decision to not endorse a presidential candidate pic.twitter.com/fYU7hkr79K— Washington Post Guild (@PostGuild) October 25, 2024

1/ "We are deeply concerned that The Washington Post — an American news institution in the nation's capital — would make the decision to no longer endorse presidential candidates, especially a mere 11 days ahead of an immensely consequential election […]"— Washington Post Guild (@PostGuild) October 25, 2024

3/ "The message from our chief executive, Will Lewis — not from the Editorial Board itself — makes us concerned that management interfered with the work of our members in Editorial […]"— Washington Post Guild (@PostGuild) October 25, 2024

5/ "We are already seeing cancellations from once loyal readers. This decision undercuts the work of our members at a time when we should be building our readers’ trust, not losing it."— Washington Post Guild (@PostGuild) October 25, 2024

Analysis

Much of what David Folkenflik, Robert Kagan, Marty Baron, and their colleagues are now saying amounts to Trump Derangement Syndrome. Note that Oliver Darcy repeated already debunked boilerplate – and also followed Godwin’s Law:

The longer an argument, debate, or political campaign continues, the higher the probability becomes that a party or candidate will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler and/or the program of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.

Everything these Washington Post editors, and Messrs. Darcy at Status and Folkenflik at NPR, say of Donald Trump, constitutes projection. They, like the Democratic politicians they idolize, are throwing off on Trump. In fact, all have called, at one time or another, for censorship of ordinary folk. Only yesterday Mika Brzezinski of MSNBC declared that those who support Trump, are living in a world of their own. (Though perhaps she meant that we were fools, and used the word idiot mistakenly as a synonym for moron.) Moreover, James O’Keefe and his operatives caught an MSNBC producer as saying the network was actively supporting Kamala Harris.

BREAKING: MSNBC Producer Admits MSNBC Is ‘Doing All They Can to Help’ the Harris Campaign.

During an undercover date with an OMG journalist, Basel Hamdan, a writer and producer for MSNBC’s show “Ayman,” was asked what the network has done to assist the Kamala Harris campaign. Hamdan revealed on hidden camera that “what her [Harris’s] message of the day is, is their message of the day,” as MSNBC actively pushes Harris’s narrative to help her win. He admitted that MSNBC is doing “all they can to help,” Harris get elected, with the network operating as an extension of the campaign. He went on to say, “MSNBC is indistinguishable from the party,” further highlighting their partisan agenda.

In discussing the relationships between the MSNBC hosts and Democratic politicians, Hamdan reveals, “The anchor and the politician are just in total agreement about everything.” He adds, “If you watch an interview with a Democratic politician, they just finish each other’s sentences.”

Hamdan also didn’t shy away from criticizing the network’s audience, stating, “They’ve made their viewers dumber over the years,” and explaining that MSNBC is “too cozy with Democratic politicians.”

BREAKING: @MSNBC Producer Admits MSNBC Is 'Doing All They Can to Help’ the Harris Campaign

During an undercover date with an OMG journalist, Basel Hamdan (@BaselYHamdan), a writer and producer for MSNBC’s show “Ayman,” (@AymanMSNBC) was asked what the network has done to assist… pic.twitter.com/y9Yk8o1UX7— James O'Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) October 3, 2024

Having said the above: if President Trump, in his second administration, does retaliate against these media organs, that retaliation would extend no further than cutting off access. But Democratic White Houses have cut off conservative access for years, even decades. Furthermore, these organs, in doing the kinds of things James O’Keefe uncovered, have forfeited any privilege of access to which they might, heretofore, have legitimately considered themselves entitled.

For whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. Galatians 6:7 (NASB)

Or a news organ. In any event, the legacy media seem to have decided that Vice-President Harris cannot help them anymore. Any help she or her boss could provide, cannot outlast a second Trump term. This they now consider all but certain.