"I am opposed to millionaires, but it would be dangerous to offer me the position." - Mark Twain
Newspapers should not make presidential endorsements because they erode the public's trust in the media.So goes the ad hoc excuse The Washington Post's billionaire owner Jeff Bezos gave in an op-ed for spiking an endorsement of Kamala Harris, enraging core readers and spurring staff resignations.
As a newspaper owner, Bezos can back or not back whoever he wants. In a free-market economy, we're forced to accept that. But blaming the decline of public trust on presidential endorsements is about as dumb as saying billionaires should not be allowed to own media outlets.
Nearly half of Americans seem to believe this, by the way, according to a Harris poll released in August. But the ultra-wealthy have always owned media businesses, and newspapers have always made, or declined to make, endorsements.
What escapes Bezos' clownish argument is that a non-endorsement speaks as loudly as an endorsement.
"I assure you that my views here are, in fact, principled," Bezos wrote, like a used-car huckster promising an honest deal.
The Los Angeles Times and USA Today are also punting on presidential endorsements this cycle. But will all this editorial cowardice restore trust in the media?
Post staffers are calling it a blunder. At last count, the paper has lost 8% of its paid circulation of 2.5 million subscribers.* And nobody is dropping their subscription to join lyingrightwingdouchebags.com.
This is the newspaper that uncovered Watergate. This is the newspaper whose journalists have toiled to detail former President Donald Trump's endless follies. This is the newspaper whose masthead declares, "Democracy dies in darkness."
And Bezos has just turned off the lights.
