I support efforts to make institutions and pillars of democracy better, but the slash and burn, cancel culture, slactivism, defund the fill in the blank, boycott X approach strikes me as unproductive. Lean in to these problems as civic engagement. Opting out may feel like making your voice heard, but it's more often removing a voice that needs to be heard. The problem with American oligarchs like Musk and Besos who are taking over some media won't be solved by stepping away.
Zooming to the 30k ft view (ignoring the specifics of WaPo and the LATimes), what's the argument FOR a paper making a presidential endorsement? I acknowledge that they CAN. Why SHOULD they?
Here's what I mean:
While I understand that full objectivity is impossible, I have always valued when news sources try to maintain objectivity in their fact reporting and analysis. Opinion and persuasion is valuable. That's why opinion pages exist.
I'm also sure that the journalists and editors have their individual and perhaps collective opinions over who they think is the best candidate. It's usually not hard to read between the lines (maybe it should be harder!). Publishing that opinion from the editorial team always seemed like saying the quiet part out loud. It seemed counter to the mission of the paper.
A lot of people seem very mad that the Post failed to endorse Harris. That’s not my issue, and I agree that it would be wrong to unsubscribe on those grounds. My issue is that, although its editorial board wanted to do so, its owner stopped them. (I didn’t care about this kerfuffle at all until I realized this.) _That_ strikes me as an attack on a free and robust press, and funneling money away from the Post toward publications that one thinks really are part of a free and robust press strikes me as reasonable and small-d democratic.
I'll probably resubscribe to the WaPo for some of the reasons you mention, but I'm not appreciating the backlash to the backlash. I unsubscribed because I was annoyed--it wasn't a grand plan to attack, or support, democracy; I wasn't intending to do activism. People are allowed to be annoyed! I subscribed in the first place not for any grand democracy supporting reasons but mostly because I was reading Alexandra Petri and a few other columnists and I thought I should pay for my pleasures.
Thanks, Laura! And I agree with you, people are allowed to be annoyed! I'm clearly annoyed! And I get that for many people it wasn't activism, though my (annoyed) response really was toward those who were treating their decision to unsubscribe as some grand act of protest. I guess that, with so many annoying things happening, I'm just looking for productive outlets. All that said, I can't say how much I appreciate you reading and responding!
I don't say this often but, AMEN! Preach!
I support efforts to make institutions and pillars of democracy better, but the slash and burn, cancel culture, slactivism, defund the fill in the blank, boycott X approach strikes me as unproductive. Lean in to these problems as civic engagement. Opting out may feel like making your voice heard, but it's more often removing a voice that needs to be heard. The problem with American oligarchs like Musk and Besos who are taking over some media won't be solved by stepping away.
Thanks, Jon. I needed to hear that. I'll resubscribe.
Zooming to the 30k ft view (ignoring the specifics of WaPo and the LATimes), what's the argument FOR a paper making a presidential endorsement? I acknowledge that they CAN. Why SHOULD they?
Here's what I mean:
While I understand that full objectivity is impossible, I have always valued when news sources try to maintain objectivity in their fact reporting and analysis. Opinion and persuasion is valuable. That's why opinion pages exist.
I'm also sure that the journalists and editors have their individual and perhaps collective opinions over who they think is the best candidate. It's usually not hard to read between the lines (maybe it should be harder!). Publishing that opinion from the editorial team always seemed like saying the quiet part out loud. It seemed counter to the mission of the paper.
A lot of people seem very mad that the Post failed to endorse Harris. That’s not my issue, and I agree that it would be wrong to unsubscribe on those grounds. My issue is that, although its editorial board wanted to do so, its owner stopped them. (I didn’t care about this kerfuffle at all until I realized this.) _That_ strikes me as an attack on a free and robust press, and funneling money away from the Post toward publications that one thinks really are part of a free and robust press strikes me as reasonable and small-d democratic.
Great first name btw
I'll probably resubscribe to the WaPo for some of the reasons you mention, but I'm not appreciating the backlash to the backlash. I unsubscribed because I was annoyed--it wasn't a grand plan to attack, or support, democracy; I wasn't intending to do activism. People are allowed to be annoyed! I subscribed in the first place not for any grand democracy supporting reasons but mostly because I was reading Alexandra Petri and a few other columnists and I thought I should pay for my pleasures.
Thanks, Laura! And I agree with you, people are allowed to be annoyed! I'm clearly annoyed! And I get that for many people it wasn't activism, though my (annoyed) response really was toward those who were treating their decision to unsubscribe as some grand act of protest. I guess that, with so many annoying things happening, I'm just looking for productive outlets. All that said, I can't say how much I appreciate you reading and responding!