The Washington Post’s decision to break a long-standing tradition and not endorse any candidate for President has set off a huge debate about journalism, ethics, the clash of business interests with editorial policy and calling out the truth.
Billionaire owner of the Post Jeff Bezos decided suddenly that the paper would not endorse either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris, a decision that has sent the newsroom reeling with some resignations, a loss of over 200,000 subscribers to the paper and plenty of heated arguments.
Bezos, who is also the founder and owner of Amazon, defended the move saying it was done to protect journalistic independence. “Our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent. And that is what we are and will be,” Bezos said. This came days after the Los Angeles Times also said it would no longer make endorsements.
Of course it would be foolish to think that editorial independence and journalist sanctity is behind this decision. Bezos has huge business interests with the federal government and cannot afford to upset any presidential candidate, especially Trump who is seen as the front-runner in the race.
Bezos pulled the plug
The Post was all set to endorse Kamala Harris when Bezos pulled the plug. Similarly the owner of the LA Times has a major pharma business that needs its drugs approve by the Food and Drug Administration or the FDA. It is quite apparent that concerns for their businesses especially in the face of a vengeful Trump, drove the two owners to back away from endorsing Harris.
But there is a bigger debate here. Should newspapers remain neutral during elections, especially at a time when misinformation, lies and polarisation is the hallmark of our politics today?
I believe in an ideal world, news organisations should stay away from taking public sides in a political battle. Which is why I always found this American practice of endorsing presidential candidates rather strange.
However, it is a tradition that is over 100 years old and the idea is to help readers make an informed choice without affecting the integrity of the journalism practised by the paper. This is why most American papers have separate editorial boards that take the lead on endorsements and opinion pieces and the newsroom is kept at an arms length. The UK too has a similar tradition.
However, we live in remarkable times. Where the job of journalists is no longer confined to maintaining a “balance” and appearing “unbiased” but for calling out the truth in an era of misinformation and fake news, where society is deeply divided and where the outcome of elections can have a bearing on the very future of democracy itself, such as this election in the United States.
A level of opacity
In these times, speaking up and taking a stand on issues that matter is exactly what is needed. When you look at the number of Trump’s flaws -- these are not normal times and it calls for the media to hold power to even greater account.
That explains why the Washington Post and the LA Times both lost a large number of readers within days of saying they would not make endorsements. Its quite clear that their readers see this as giving in to political pressure.
Journalism is not just about narrating a story. In these times, it requires the media to stand up and speak up strongly on issues that matter. Sitting on the sidelines is not an option. In many respects, I find the media systems in the US and UK to be more straightforward than what we experience in India.
Here, much of the mainstream media appears to support the ruling BJP without openly declaring it, which creates a level of opacity that is concerning.
_resources1_16a45059ca3_small.jpg)
