To Cancel or Not to Cancel

That some Americans say that they are cancelling the WaPo, LAT, Detroit News and presumably other newspaper subscriptions is deeply disturbing because as journalists we should be more open than any other segment of society to differences of opinion.

The editorial page(s) belong to the publisher. They are his or hers to use and abuse. More than a few times when I was with the LA Times my front page exposes drew editorials disparaging or dismissing my reporting. The publisher's entitled -- just so long as he or she keeps their hands off the news report.

Criticism and disagreement are central to journalism. So is diversity of perspective and giving voice to a broad range of viewpoints.

I join those who are angry/disappointed/furious/outraged/upset/ by Bezos and Soon-Shiong not endorsing in the 2024 presidential race. This is a democracy-threatening dereliction of duty.

But we don’t ignore principles in disagreements. Well, not unless you are, like Donald, utterly unprincipled.

It makes no sense to deny yourself the serious news reports of the WaPo and LAT because of a decision on the editorial page(s).

That's no reason to cancel subscriptions and harm both the great work and the solid journalists soldiering on at these three and other newspapers. And in canceling your subscriptions you hurt yourself and our democracy. Shame on those of you who cancelled, action I hope you quickly reverse.

Criticize the feckless publishers. Shame them. Picket. Hell, yell at them if you encounter them on the street.

But canceling subscriptions get their attention because they are already subsidizing money-losing newspapers.

My critique:

1. If you did this out of fear off Trumpian retribution, this won't save you. Donald is not one to make fine distinctions in his hatred and lust for vengeance. The time to curry favor by bowing to his majestic view of his own perfect omnipotence was years ago, not now. Donald says he will punish those who dared to criticize him. You should believe him but react with courage not cowardice even if you believe, as I do, that down the road of a Trumpian dictatorship lie firing squads with me and other journalists likely to be lawlessly executed.

2. If you did this because you want more tax cuts for you and your fellow billionaires you have revealed yourselves to be selfish, shallow, immoral and in the long run incredibly stupid because more for those with more than enough while tens of millions live in economic fear will breed more political resentment and ultimately revolution against oligarchs [See France, 1789].

3. The decent and proper next step is to explain your reasoning. Write your own editorial and sign it. And then authorize your editorial board to both critique your work and express their expert opinions about the best qualified candidate. This would show that you believe in robust debate and actually care about making our democracy endure.

David Cay Johnston is a former reporter for The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, Detroit Free Press, San Jose Mercury News, and bureau chief at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He has written numerous books, including The Big Cheat, It's Even Worse Than You Think, and The Making of Donald Trump.

First, the New York Times has enthusiastically endorsed Kamala Harris, to their credit. Most newspapers in America have endorsed Kamala Harris, to their credit. The billionaire owners of the LA Times and the Washington Post overruled their own editorial staff and are refusing to endorse Harris because they are cowardly caving to pressure from Trump and his threats to punish the media (revoke FCC licenses, file lawsuits, jail enemies, etc.) if, god forbid, he wins the election.

It's fine to register our disapproval by cancelling subscriptions to the Post and LA Times. It's a justified protest. It makes a statement. One can even re-subscribe down the road, after the election, if your concern is to sustain the journalists. But also, as others have pointed out, there are other very good alternatives to choose from, including the PBS Newshour, NPR, the Guardian, the BBC, local newspapers, many foreign news sources, and an almost endless number of niche news outlets. Right now, the biggest thing one can do for truth and press freedom is to make certain that Trump loses. The Post slogan is "Democracy dies in darkness." Well, hello, darkness is on the ballot.

Full stop.

Stephen Talbot is a documentary producer and director whose credits include "The Movement and the Madman" an examination of how student protests prevented Richard Nixon from escalating the Vietnam War. He is a former senior producer at PBS Frontline and he has won nearly every major broadcast journalism award, including Emmys, Peabodys, a DuPont, a George Polk, an Overseas Press Club Award, and a special Edgar Allan Poe Award for his biography of mystery writer Dashiell Hammett.

ON FRIDAY, after the Washington Post’s publisher announced that the paper was suddenly abandoning the practice of the editorial page endorsing presidential candidates, news leaked that—on the very same day—Donald Trump met with executives from Blue Origin.

Blue Origin, of course, is the rocket company owned by Jeff Bezos, who also owns the Washington Post.

This was neither a coincidence nor a case of Bezos and Trump being caught doing something they wished to keep hidden. The entire point of the exercise, at least for Trump, was that it be public.

What we witnessed on Friday was not a case of censorship or a failure of the media. It had nothing to do with journalism or the Washington Post. It was something much, much more consequential. It was about oligarchy, the rule of law, and the failure of the democratic order.

When Bezos decreed that the newspaper he owned could not endorse Trump’s opponent, it was a transparent act of submission borne of an intuitive understanding of the differences between the candidates.

Bezos understood that if he antagonized Kamala Harris and Harris became president, he would face no consequences. A Harris administration would not target his businesses because the Harris administration would—like all presidential administrations not headed by Trump—adhere to the rule of law.

Bezos likewise understood that the inverse was not true. If he continued to antagonize Trump and Trump became president, his businesses very much would be targeted.

What Trump understood was that Bezos’s submission would be of limited use if it was kept quiet. Because the point of dominating Bezos wasn’t just to dominate Bezos. It was to send a message to every other businessman, entrepreneur, and corporation in America: that these are the rules of the game. If you are nice to Trump, the government will be nice to you. If you criticize Trump, the government will be used against you.

Read more at The Bulwark.

So bending the knee to Trump was the smart play. All upside, no downside.