Here is what Bezos and the owner of the LA Times should have written if they were afraid of endorsing Kamala Harris. Instead, I wrote it:
We have decided not to endorse Kamala Harris, in spite of our editorial staff's wishes, because we, the publishers, don't want to risk our futures. Trump has threatened to go after the press, and we own companies that seek government contracts. If we endorse VP Harris, Trump may well follow through on his threats and ruin us financially or even throw us in jail. VP Harris, if she becomes president, will NOT hold our silence against us.
Trump admires authoritarians and fascists and talks about governing like them. If he gets elected, we believe he will follow through with his plans, and his dictatorship will last far longer than the first day of his term. So we won't endorse Ms. Harris, because we've decided not to die on the hill of the First Amendment. Instead, we will give into the fear. It's a business decision, as well as a decision not to risk jail or worse.
I feel terribly bad for the rank and file at the Post - they all deserve so much better than Bezos and his cronies. But the problems at newspapers and those of our politics today, while they collided spectacularly in this instance, have different roots. We saw the business model of news publishing collapse in the internet era. As someone involved in aspects of news publishing since the 90s I’ve been troubled by the lack of success in finding revenue to replace print ads and classifieds.
At the Post, this was amplified by the downfall of major advertisers like regional department stores (3 different companies I can think of).
I miss those few years when we had profitable newspapers AND four color printing.
What I really don't understand is that if the Post wasn't going to endorse a presidential candidate, they should have stated so up front with the Iowa caucuses. Not waited until 10 days before the election. And if they aren't going to endorse a presidential candidate, why endorse any political candidate? Why endorse Alsobrooks, then? It just smells so rancid. And it insults my intelligence. I like to think that part of my intelligence comes from reading the Post daily. I came very close to canceling. But I'm staying put. I hate hate hate TV news. So the Post (and the Pist) it is.
I voted in the poll that I am pretty sure Harris would win. We all know you can't rust the polls and I'm thinking there are a LOT of people that rarely answer the phone if it's an unknown number (me included). So, who ARE these people that are being polled? And, maybe I put to much stick into the recent Harris (or was it Cheney?) quip that said you can vote your conscience and you don't have to tell anybody how you voted. Maybe I just have too much faith that enough people will do the right thing.
Congratulations on being the fallback position for people with moral standards!! I feel wonderful about this turn of events, and I’d like to sign up to be the national security columnist but likely fit better as a pist-off snarky windbag.
Sequels better than original: The Empire Strikes Back is 10 times as good as Star Wars. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is 100 times as good as Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
As Carville would put it (and still may...): "It's the spin, stupid." I think what sticks in most craws, is a whirling dervish of explanations for why an endorsement of democracy, not necessarily a particular candidate this time around, wasn't forthcoming. The powers-that-be trotted out weasel words in explanation; they certainly could have done the same in supporting the right side in something resembling an endorsement. Clearly the crisis managers and PR people were hard at it and trying (unsuccessfully, I suggest) to put lipstick on several porkers at the same time
As for canceling subscriptions, I seem to have lost Bezos’s personal phone number. This is the only means many of us have to directly express our concern to him, in a message (money) he understands. Canceling Prime is indirect, and not as in your face as that whopping loss of subscribers was.
Former Post copy aide-turned-photo-researcher here!👋 (15th & L vintage 👵🏼) If the Pist needs any snail-mail-sorting, phone-answering, message-taking, or photo-archiving😆— oh, silly me: none of these tasks needs doing anymore😭 — I’m willing to labor at 1992-era pay scale in return for the honor of participating in this worthy venture!🥸😉🤠
I was both thrilled and scared to hear the 200K number. That's enough subscriptions to really get Bezos' attention, which was the point.
But it's also enough to hurt the cause of good journalism, which is scary.
I cancelled, but I'm on the annual plan, which renews in May, and by then, I hoped, the point will have been made, and I'd accept whatever "win-back" offer they give me not to actually go away.
But the "cancel WaPo" cause was taken up publicly and spread widely by many celebrities and folks who don't live in DC (many of whom hypocritically announced it on Xitter of all places!). T became performative. Now those folks would have to eat face to resubscribe.
That damage won't ever be repaired.
And Bezos's childish doubling down "explanation" made it worse.
His arguments would hold more water if the Post had killed all staff politics editorials, but that's not what he they did. They cancelled only endorsements. They did it a week before the election. They did it after writing an endorsement. And they did it as an edict from the billionaire owner.
I don't understand keeping a subscription at the Post. I canceled mine and it broke my heart.
Yes, there are lots of good people working there and writers that I enjoy reading. But how am I supposed to trust the institution again? There are lots of other good people and good writers out there that I can support and they don't work for institutions that I don't trust. My subscription is the only voice I have in this issue.
Gene are you ok? Unless they are from the same person I think you posted two things that said the mom was the betrayer and then said the second might be the only one you got. Hoping it is because you are hyped up on the Pist idea. And I am NOT auditioning here for the role of annoying copy editor, because no one is better than Pat the Perfect.
Here is what Bezos and the owner of the LA Times should have written if they were afraid of endorsing Kamala Harris. Instead, I wrote it:
We have decided not to endorse Kamala Harris, in spite of our editorial staff's wishes, because we, the publishers, don't want to risk our futures. Trump has threatened to go after the press, and we own companies that seek government contracts. If we endorse VP Harris, Trump may well follow through on his threats and ruin us financially or even throw us in jail. VP Harris, if she becomes president, will NOT hold our silence against us.
Trump admires authoritarians and fascists and talks about governing like them. If he gets elected, we believe he will follow through with his plans, and his dictatorship will last far longer than the first day of his term. So we won't endorse Ms. Harris, because we've decided not to die on the hill of the First Amendment. Instead, we will give into the fear. It's a business decision, as well as a decision not to risk jail or worse.
I feel terribly bad for the rank and file at the Post - they all deserve so much better than Bezos and his cronies. But the problems at newspapers and those of our politics today, while they collided spectacularly in this instance, have different roots. We saw the business model of news publishing collapse in the internet era. As someone involved in aspects of news publishing since the 90s I’ve been troubled by the lack of success in finding revenue to replace print ads and classifieds.
At the Post, this was amplified by the downfall of major advertisers like regional department stores (3 different companies I can think of).
I miss those few years when we had profitable newspapers AND four color printing.
I am conflicted about the ones tied to this albatross. Mortgages and rents are real. Hungry kids are real.
What I really don't understand is that if the Post wasn't going to endorse a presidential candidate, they should have stated so up front with the Iowa caucuses. Not waited until 10 days before the election. And if they aren't going to endorse a presidential candidate, why endorse any political candidate? Why endorse Alsobrooks, then? It just smells so rancid. And it insults my intelligence. I like to think that part of my intelligence comes from reading the Post daily. I came very close to canceling. But I'm staying put. I hate hate hate TV news. So the Post (and the Pist) it is.
That's why this is so insulting. This isn't "bad planning" and no one with a couple of brain cells believes this.
I voted in the poll that I am pretty sure Harris would win. We all know you can't rust the polls and I'm thinking there are a LOT of people that rarely answer the phone if it's an unknown number (me included). So, who ARE these people that are being polled? And, maybe I put to much stick into the recent Harris (or was it Cheney?) quip that said you can vote your conscience and you don't have to tell anybody how you voted. Maybe I just have too much faith that enough people will do the right thing.
and I need to learn to type....STOCK not stick and TRUST not rust. And I can't evem blame autocorrect.
I just ‘liked’ both your posts but I did it to the second one in particular for that extra typo.
autocorrect isn't evem rustworthy
and when I read it I thought "did he mean 'shtick?'"
I am not smart.
and of course TOO much stock vs. to much
Congratulations on being the fallback position for people with moral standards!! I feel wonderful about this turn of events, and I’d like to sign up to be the national security columnist but likely fit better as a pist-off snarky windbag.
The pist-off snarky windbag department will be well staffed.
I am seriously unsurprised. :) My niche has yet to be defined.
Sequels better than original: The Empire Strikes Back is 10 times as good as Star Wars. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is 100 times as good as Star Trek: The Motion Picture.
As Carville would put it (and still may...): "It's the spin, stupid." I think what sticks in most craws, is a whirling dervish of explanations for why an endorsement of democracy, not necessarily a particular candidate this time around, wasn't forthcoming. The powers-that-be trotted out weasel words in explanation; they certainly could have done the same in supporting the right side in something resembling an endorsement. Clearly the crisis managers and PR people were hard at it and trying (unsuccessfully, I suggest) to put lipstick on several porkers at the same time
That woman with the blind husband might remind her husband of the contempt the Melon Felon has for the disabled.
As for canceling subscriptions, I seem to have lost Bezos’s personal phone number. This is the only means many of us have to directly express our concern to him, in a message (money) he understands. Canceling Prime is indirect, and not as in your face as that whopping loss of subscribers was.
Former Post copy aide-turned-photo-researcher here!👋 (15th & L vintage 👵🏼) If the Pist needs any snail-mail-sorting, phone-answering, message-taking, or photo-archiving😆— oh, silly me: none of these tasks needs doing anymore😭 — I’m willing to labor at 1992-era pay scale in return for the honor of participating in this worthy venture!🥸😉🤠
A noink "And Last" bid from Week 1355's Inside Word contest that may have held up well.
And Last - Washington “POS”t: A crappy newspaper everyone should cancel their subscription to. (D.T., Washington)
I was both thrilled and scared to hear the 200K number. That's enough subscriptions to really get Bezos' attention, which was the point.
But it's also enough to hurt the cause of good journalism, which is scary.
I cancelled, but I'm on the annual plan, which renews in May, and by then, I hoped, the point will have been made, and I'd accept whatever "win-back" offer they give me not to actually go away.
But the "cancel WaPo" cause was taken up publicly and spread widely by many celebrities and folks who don't live in DC (many of whom hypocritically announced it on Xitter of all places!). T became performative. Now those folks would have to eat face to resubscribe.
That damage won't ever be repaired.
And Bezos's childish doubling down "explanation" made it worse.
His arguments would hold more water if the Post had killed all staff politics editorials, but that's not what he they did. They cancelled only endorsements. They did it a week before the election. They did it after writing an endorsement. And they did it as an edict from the billionaire owner.
Doubling down on that was monumentally tone deaf.
I've heard 300K, don't know if that's accurate or not.
I don't understand keeping a subscription at the Post. I canceled mine and it broke my heart.
Yes, there are lots of good people working there and writers that I enjoy reading. But how am I supposed to trust the institution again? There are lots of other good people and good writers out there that I can support and they don't work for institutions that I don't trust. My subscription is the only voice I have in this issue.
Gene are you ok? Unless they are from the same person I think you posted two things that said the mom was the betrayer and then said the second might be the only one you got. Hoping it is because you are hyped up on the Pist idea. And I am NOT auditioning here for the role of annoying copy editor, because no one is better than Pat the Perfect.
Just ordinary dementia, Terri. Nothing to be worried about.
I haven't seen it, but critics just about died over Paddington 2. So maybe that goes on the list?
This one, maybe?
Washington Pist: The Letters to the Editor page. (Marc Leibert, New York)
(http://nrars.org/inviteText/0512.html)
I have not yet canceled my WaPo subscription. I'm still holding out hope as they just added color comics every day.
My husband draws/writes one of the comics that appears in the Post, so I thank you on his behalf.