The mainstream media refuses to support presidential candidates in the US and controversy arises
The decision of The Washington Post not to support any presidential candidate for November 5 opened a controversy in the United States. Other media have also refused to join the option of supporting a formula, a practice that was common in past elections. When the billionaire owner of Amazon and The Washington Post newspaper, Jeff […]
The decision of The Washington Post not to support any presidential candidate for November 5 opened a controversy in the United States. Other media have also refused to join the option of supporting a formula, a practice that was common in past elections.
When the billionaire owner of Amazon and The Washington Post newspaper, Jeff Bezos, canceled an agreement by the editorial team to support the Democratic candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris, in the November 5 elections, a whirlwind was unleashed within the newspaper. reference of the capital of the United States and a barrage of external criticism that threatens subscriptions.
This newspaper, close to the centers of political power in Washington, DC and with a marked history since its founding in 1887, maintained that its decision would take it back to neutrality, but the measure is questioned in different circles.
“The Washington Post will not endorse any presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election,” publisher Will Lewis said in a statement Friday. “We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.”
Eric Farnsworth, vice president of the AS/COA Council of the Americas, a think tank in Washington, told the Voice of America that he was surprised by the news and that such a decision – which is also made by other traditional media at the national level – has various interpretations and rejections for those who expected support for the Democratic candidate.
“This doesn't mean that newspapers are suddenly supporting Donald Trump; It's not like that. It's just that some believe, on the business side, that there is no particular benefit in getting into the debate when the issues are so totally politically polarized,” Farnsworth said.
And he put into context that the support for certain candidates in past elections did not imply any change in the editorial line because “their editorial opinions are already well known and when their respective support would not make any perceptible difference in the result of the presidential election.”
The position of the surrender
Analyst Michael Shifter, associate professor at the Center for Latin American Studies at Georgetown University, considered in statements to the VOAthat the Post's decision has “troubling” implications.
In his opinion, the decision of the newspaper's owner, Jeff Bezos, could not be understood “in any other way than a surrender to the possible pressures that could result from a possible Trump administration.”
Shifter agrees with other analysts that the position reflects “the fear and lack of courage of some important media, reflected in the fear of possible punishments that Trump could apply to them,” he noted.
Social networks became a trench this weekend to position themselves on the issue as the electoral contest heads into the final stretch.
The former United States ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, who also worked as an advisor to President Joe Biden's administration on foreign policy, went ahead to describe the Post owner's decision as “hypocritical.”
“This is the most hypocritical and cowardly move by a publication that is supposed to hold people in power accountable,” she said on social media and was quoted by US media.
Turbulence on board
The Post newsroom was shaken since Friday with unexpected resignations due to the step taken by the management and the hardships hit the newspaper's pocket over the weekend, with cancellations of subscriptions, more than 2,000 on the first day.
“The effect on the morale of the Washington Post staff has been devastating,” Shifter told VOA and American media have given some clues about the turbulence on board.
The effect began on Friday morning when the editor-in-chief made the announcement to the staff and then spread outside. Editorial section editor David Shipley warned there would be “strong reactions across the department.”
Said and done, the newspaper's general editor of Opinion, Robert Kagan, resigned the same afternoon, leaving words that express frustration at the direction taken.
Kagan, quoted by CNN, said that the decision was nothing more than a bet by Bezos to “win the favor of Donald Trump in anticipation of a possible victory.”
And he added that the Republican candidate has “threatened to go after Bezos' business. Bezos runs one of the largest companies in the United States. They have tremendously intricate relationships with the federal government. They depend on the federal government,” he added.
Former Washington Post executive editor Martin “Marty” Baron, who led the newspaper’s coverage of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, which won a Pulitzar Prize, joined the criticism, calling it “cowardly.” with democracy as a victim.”
Marty warned that the Post's stance and that of other media outlets would create an incentive to “further intimidate owner Jeff Bezos and other” media owners, which in the public eye results in a “disturbing lack of character in an institution famous for his bravery,” he noted on social networks.
Inside the newsroom, a group of 13 newspaper columnists later described in a joint statement that the position taken is a “terrible mistake” and that it would represent “an abandonment of the newspaper's fundamental editorial convictions” supported by its long history of more than a century.
The union that brings together the media workers also spread its position of “deep concern” about the significance of a decision made when there is one week left for an “immensely important” election.
Earthquakes in other environments throughout the country
The last generations of Americans have become accustomed to seeing the support declared from the guidelines of major media outlets throughout the country, towards any of the presidential formulas in contention, without this having generated a conflict in the coverage of the elections.
A practice different from Latin American countries, where it is not customary to openly take a position on why to support one candidate and not another.
In recent days, another leading newspaper on the East Coast, the Los Angeles Times, also experienced an earthquake that led to the immediate resignation of three members of the editorial board, due to the media's refusal to endorse one of the candidates.
The owner of the media, Patrick Soon-Shiong, stopped the support for Kamala Harris that the editorial board had written.
One of the investment groups that promoted guidelines for the electoral contests was McClatchy & Alden Global Capital, which brings together hundreds of newspapers throughout the United States, in which it has been said that they are putting an “end to the practice” of endorsing candidates.
However, the position of the influential New York Times is maintained, which at the beginning of this year stated that it would no longer support candidates in local elections, but when Vice President Kamala Harris' candidacy to occupy the White House became official, it declared its support. to the Democratic formula considering that it is the “only patriotic option for president”.
Other reference media also came out in opposition to the Washington Post, such as the Philadelphia Enquirer, which on recent Friday declared his support for Harris arguing that “There has never been a more important presidential election in our lifetime. The path to the White House can go through Pennsylvania and every vote counts.”
The Houston Chronicle from the booming Texan city also joined in. support the democratic candidate under the argument that “we believe that Trump is not suitable for a second term in the White House and why this editorial board supports Kamala Harris as president of the United States.”