The 4th Estate Thread Has Surrendered

[Isgrimnur]

Hopefully they aren’t owned by Gannett.

When Jeff Bezos, billionaire owner of The Washington Post, suddenly ordered the newspaper not to endorse a presidential candidate, more than 200,000 readers rebelled and canceled their subscriptions.

The Gannett Co., owner of more than 200 newspapers and media outlets, somehow interpreted this as an opportunity. The company, which fights for every subscription it can get with deeply discounted pricing, decided to order all of its properties not to endorse a presidential candidate

Yes, it emulated the Post but in a deeper and far more disturbing way. The company issued a gag order so that no matter how important the presidential election may be to a specific community, the local editorial board can’t publish its opinion.

[gbasden]

Hopefully they aren’t owned by Gannett.

The Sacramento Bee is owned by McClatchy, and the SF Chronicle is owned by Hearst. I'm not under illusions that they are perfect, but it works for me for now.

[Grifman]

Trump says much worse things every day. This is just like the press making a big deal of Biden’s declining mental state but saying nothing about Trump’s.

[Jaymann]

What did Biden actually say?

[Archinerd]

Yeah, I'd think a real "protest" would be to cancel the WaPo and funnel that money into a local news agency (if they still exist for you).

They do, and I did. As well as a regional newspaper and NPR.

That's my move as well.

[Holman]

What did Biden actually say?

I don't have time to look it up, but Biden responded to the Trump rally's "Puerto Rico is garbage" quasi-joke by saying something like "the only garbage I see is his supporter's."

Biden spokespeople are insisting that the transcript includes an apostrophe s (i.e. "his supporter's garbage") while MAGA is all huffy and saying he meant "Trump supporters are garbage."

I say, Why Not Both?

[hepcat]

Trump says much worse things every day. This is just like the press making a big deal of Biden’s declining mental state but saying nothing about Trump’s.

Trump has normalized that kind of language with the media. Which sucks. But if you repeatedly yell "fire!" in a crowded theater, eventually people just go back to watching the movie...until someone else yells "kaiju!"

[ImLawBoy]

Over 200,000 subscribers flee 'Washington Post' after Bezos blocks Harris endorsement

Not all cancellations take effect immediately. Still, the figure represents about 8% of the paper’s paid circulation of 2.5 million subscribers, which includes print as well. The number of cancellations continued to grow Monday afternoon.

The unfortunate thing about all the canceled subscriptions is that they won't hurt Bezos one bit. They'll definitely hurt rank and file when more layoffs likely hit later this year as a result of all the cancellations.

Yep. This idea that NYT and Post subscribers should cancel their subscriptions in protest over a decision not to endorse Presidential candidates is about as constructive as Muslims withholding their vote from Harris to protest U.S. foreign policy vis a vis Israel.

That's a specious argument, to be generous about it. With the newspapers, if your gambit works and impacts the newspaper, you're likely to see a positive change in coverage/opinions. With the voting, if the gambit works and you impact the election, you're likely to see a negative change for Palestinians in Gaza.

Hmmm. I get your point: At least those who are cancelling their Post and NYT subscriptions can tell themselves that if their "gambit" works, they'll contribute to saving the 4th Estate. But I think you're wrong - and certainly not generous - in your analysis.

Those cancelling their subscriptions think they are doing something to save journalism. Those withholding their vote because of current foreign policy toward Israel and the Palestinians think they are doing something to save the Democratic party from itself and change U.S. policy.

That both are wrong doesn't mean my argument is specious. My point is that both groups are cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

No, they're not at all comparable. Maybe the Gaza protestors thought that this would impact D policy and party line 6 months ago, but that ship has long sailed. No one thinks that Harris is going to pull a last minute major policy change in the final week of the campaign and adopt the Gaza protestor positions. Maintaining that position, then, is counterproductive to their real supposed goal of saving lives in Gaza. The efficacy of the WaPo protestors actions may be up for debate, but they're at least rational and have a chance of impacting WaPo's position going forward. Trying to paint the rational, potentially productive position of the WaPo cancelers with the same brush as the irrational, counterproductive position of the Gaza vote withholders still strikes me as specious if I'm being generous, and bad faith if I'm not.

I think this piece from Slate today captures what I'm trying to convey:

If you’re like me, your social media feeds for the past few days have been full of posts with screenshots of “We’ve Canceled Your Subscription” notices and comments to the effect of “This will not stand, Washington Post!” Never before have so many people—200,000, according to one report—gotten such an ecstatic hit of online righteousness out of saving themselves 200 bucks a year.

These are the times that remind us of how little most people understand how journalism works . . .

The Washington Post is already a struggling institution, having undergone layoffs and buyouts just last month. If 200,000 subscribers permanently bail on the paper, it may never recover. Or it may survive with much of its coverage cut back, and that may trigger a spiral into oblivion somewhere down the road as the remaining subscribers decide that a pale shadow of the Post’s former self is not worth paying for. Many bad things would follow from this, including journalists losing their jobs and the elimination of noncore sections that I value, like the Washington Post Book World. Most of all, however, there’s a lot of good, important journalism that won’t happen if the Post isn’t around (or can’t afford) to do it . . .

When you cancel your subscription to the Post, you don’t punish Jeff Bezos. You punish the journalists who write such stories, including, ironically, the journalists who wrote and prepared to publish the very endorsement you’re so angry about. As one Post staffer told me, “The journalists who produce the Washington Post had no role in this decision, and yet they’re the only people who will be really hurt if you cancel your subscription.”

And if those journalists lose their jobs, what happens to them? The most clueless subscription-cancelers of all maintain that they’ll just get jobs elsewhere. Apparently there are still people out there who don’t know that the business model for journalism is currently in free fall, with only brand-name legacy organizations, like the Post and the New York Times, able to hold on by their fingernails while still providing in-depth reporting. Last year alone, 131 local newspapers shuttered, a loss that has fostered the increasing polarization of their communities.

If the people who are so outraged about the decision of the Post not to endorse really wanted to do something to protest, there is one obvious subscription they could cancel: Amazon Prime. As the Slate piece points out, though, "Unfortunately, this is a bridge too far for a lot of us. I’ve heard from a handful of very honest persons that canceling Prime calls for a “bravery” that they don’t possess. The free press is one thing, but do not come for our free two-day shipping!"

This is wrong on a number of levels. First, consider that WaPo is a vanity project for Bezos. He could lose 100% of his subscription base and continue to run operations as is taking massive losses and it would not impact his ability to buy a new super yacht each year. Likewise, he could probably lose all of his Prime subscribers without much of an impact.

Second, this ignores that many of the cancelers will divert their money into other local journalism that doesn't publicly kowtow to Trump.

Third, this is how the free market works. If you put out a crappy product and then condescendingly lecture your customers about how you're right and they don't see the big picture like you, the genius, do, then you should expect people to vote with their wallets. They don't owe anything to Bezos, who, again, could continue to fund WaPo at the same level with change he finds in his couch cushions. It will be sad if people lose their jobs because of this, but that's capitalism for you.

Finally, this is a perfect is the enemy of the good situation. Would this potentially have more impact if people also canceled their Prime subscriptions? Maybe. Does that mean that only canceling the WaPo subscriptions is ineffective and not worthwhile? Of course not. It's has more proximity to the issue at hand (Bezos's and WaPo's editorial cowardice) than Prime cancellations and thus is more likely to have a more direct impact.

To be clear, I have never had a subscription to WaPo. I do have a Prime subscription, and I'm not planning on cancelling it. I don't know that the WaPo cancellations will have any impact or are even the best route to go. I just got irked with the comparison to the Gaza vote withholders and that's led to all of this.

[Max Peck]

Why are the MAGAs complaining? I thought they are into old white men that just say it as it is.

[Kurth]

No, they're not at all comparable. Maybe the Gaza protestors thought that this would impact D policy and party line 6 months ago, but that ship has long sailed. No one thinks that Harris is going to pull a last minute major policy change in the final week of the campaign and adopt the Gaza protestor positions. Maintaining that position, then, is counterproductive to their real supposed goal of saving lives in Gaza. The efficacy of the WaPo protestors actions may be up for debate, but they're at least rational and have a chance of impacting WaPo's position going forward. Trying to paint the rational, potentially productive position of the WaPo cancelers with the same brush as the irrational, counterproductive position of the Gaza vote withholders still strikes me as specious if I'm being generous, and bad faith if I'm not.

(1) I do not understand your time horizon here: To the extent they are thinking this through, which is admittedly highly questionable, I don’t think those withholding their vote from Harris over Gaza are doing it thinking they are going to effect a change in U.S. policy immediately. Rather, if they punish democrats in this election and do it in a significant way, that will help shape democratic policy going forward. Why would they think they impact would stop next Tuesday?

(2) You are ignoring the article I posted and the reasoning therein entirely. As you stated, the Post is a vanity project for Bezos, but as the article points out, it’s one he controls. Hitting out at the Post by cancelling subscriptions hurts the Post, but it doesn’t hurt the clown who’s calling the shots. That’s not rational or productive.

(3) Suggesting my argument is “bad faith” is bush league bullshit. I’m not drive-by trolling here. You’re an admin. Be better.

[ImLawBoy]

No, they're not at all comparable. Maybe the Gaza protestors thought that this would impact D policy and party line 6 months ago, but that ship has long sailed. No one thinks that Harris is going to pull a last minute major policy change in the final week of the campaign and adopt the Gaza protestor positions. Maintaining that position, then, is counterproductive to their real supposed goal of saving lives in Gaza. The efficacy of the WaPo protestors actions may be up for debate, but they're at least rational and have a chance of impacting WaPo's position going forward. Trying to paint the rational, potentially productive position of the WaPo cancelers with the same brush as the irrational, counterproductive position of the Gaza vote withholders still strikes me as specious if I'm being generous, and bad faith if I'm not.

(1) I do not understand your time horizon here: To the extent they are thinking this through, which is admittedly highly questionable, I don’t think those withholding their vote from Harris over Gaza are doing it thinking they are going to effect a change in U.S. policy immediately. Rather, if they punish democrats in this election and do it in a significant way, that will help shape democratic policy going forward. Why would they think they impact would stop next Tuesday?

Shaping D policy going forward doesn't do a lot if Gaza is already paved over and the Ds never regain control, both of which are reasonably likely if Trump wins. It's irrational in a way that the WaPo cancelers are not.

(2) You are ignoring the article I posted and the reasoning therein entirely. As you stated, the Post is a vanity project for Bezos, but as the article points out, it’s one he controls. Hitting out at the Post by cancelling subscriptions hurts the Post, but it doesn’t hurt the clown who’s calling the shots. That’s not rational or productive.

Disagreeing with the article is not ignoring it. Hurting Bezos's vanity project hurts Bezos's vanity. [edit] You can't hurt Bezos financially. It's impossible. But you can hurt his vanity.[/edit]

(3) Suggesting my argument is “bad faith” is bush league bullshit. I’m not drive-by trolling here. You’re an admin. Be better.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I was trying to be generous by calling it specious. I'm truly hopeful that you're not arguing in bad faith (and I don't think you are), but trying to smear the actions of the WaPo cancelers by trying to liken them to the Gaza vote withholders is the weak shit, if we're being honest.

[El Guapo]

He's not wrong in saying that suggesting his argument is 'bad faith' is kind of a personal attack. You're basically saying that you think he's arguing something that he doesn't believe out of...I don't know, trolling? I agree that it's a bad look for an admin. Just leave it as "your argument is really weak".

[ImLawBoy]

Fair enough. I was struggling to see how someone could equate the WaPo cancelers to the Gaza vote withholders, but in these parts I should give the benefit of the doubt. It just struck me as a way to demonize or call cancelers foolish that wasn't really called for.

Kurth, I didn't consider it a personal attack on you because (in my head) I didn't think you were arguing in bad faith. The transfer of my thoughts to the screen left much to be desired, however. I should have left that part out of my comments, because I can see how it would be read as a personal attack, and I probably would have taken it badly if it were directed at me.

You're still wrong on this one, though.

[ImLawBoy]

And since I didn't actually say it, I apologize for the slight. it was unintended, but I should choose my words and phrasing more carefully.

[GreenGoo]

It just struck me as a way to demonize or call cancelers foolish that wasn't really called for.

It was exactly that, and that happens on here in many ways, including people who vote with their wallets in the gaming forum.

It's lame, and I'm almost guaranteed to have done it myself. Parallels, comparisons and analogies are only so useful when conveying an idea. At some point you have to understand that people are going to assume you are painting everyone with the same brush.

I'd also like to point out that the idea that people are too rich to be hurt, so you should keep supporting a business they own but disagree with, because employees are going to be the only ones hurt, is ludicrous on its face. Particularly when profitability was never part of the equation in the first place.

[Kurth]

Fair enough. I was struggling to see how someone could equate the WaPo cancelers to the Gaza vote withholders, but in these parts I should give the benefit of the doubt. It just struck me as a way to demonize or call cancelers foolish that wasn't really called for.

Kurth, I didn't consider it a personal attack on you because (in my head) I didn't think you were arguing in bad faith. The transfer of my thoughts to the screen left much to be desired, however. I should have left that part out of my comments, because I can see how it would be read as a personal attack, and I probably would have taken it badly if it were directed at me.

You're still wrong on this one, though.

Thanks for this. All good.

I may be wrong (often), but when I am, I am truly and honestly wrong. Never in bad faith.

[Alefroth]

Why are the MAGAs complaining? I thought they are into old white men that just say it as it is.

I'm sure Vance and Johnson will just tell everyone they shouldn't get so worked up over this. Just get over it.

[waitingtoconnect]

It just struck me as a way to demonize or call cancelers foolish that wasn't really called for.

It was exactly that, and that happens on here in many ways, including people who vote with their wallets in the gaming forum.

It's lame, and I'm almost guaranteed to have done it myself. Parallels, comparisons and analogies are only so useful when conveying an idea. At some point you have to understand that people are going to assume you are painting everyone with the same brush.

I'd also like to point out that the idea that people are too rich to be hurt, so you should keep supporting a business they own but disagree with, because employees are going to be the only ones hurt, is ludicrous on its face. Particularly when profitability was never part of the equation in the first place.

These companies and oligarchs have such complex ownership structures that semantically it’s impossible to not be a hypocrite.

For example you can’t not use Amazon because it’s cloud service AWS powers government, powers industry. And in the food space a handful of companies owns what we eat or transports what we eat.

[Victoria Raverna]

I've cancelled too.

The more complicated part is to find out where the serious and legitimate journalists have gone and to subscribe and support their work.

Same here. I would have thought Bezos would be all "fuck it, I've got my billions" but apparently not. I mean, why the hell would an untouchable billionaire even care?

I'm too tired to go and find the source, but I read that Trump had a meeting at Blue Origin the same day that the WaPo announced that it would not be endorsing either candidate, making it seem like Bezos muzzled the Post because he wants a slice of the action in the American space program for his favorite hobby company. Which would be hilarious if true, because Leon will never, ever let that happen if he ends up as Trump's "efficiency" czar.

Two reasons why I think Bezos will still lose if Trump wins the White House. Even if Leon doesn't end up in the Administration.

1. In Trump's mind for every winner there needs to be a loser. Leon and SpaceX are clearly winners, so Blue Origin will have to be the loser.
2. Trump never forgives nor forgets. See Sen. Romney and Chris Christie.

But Trump forgives Vance?

[hepcat]

He ignores slights when it’s advantageous to him. But the moment Vance is no longer useful, he’ll try to screw him over for what he said. No one can ever be friends with Trump for long. He’s a sociopath.

[GreenGoo]

It also matters what someone is saying/doing right now, in the moment. If they are kowtowing and singing his praises, all is forgiven, at least in public. Drumpf will definitely screw them over eventually, because as Hepcat said, he's a sociopath.

[Jaymann]

Mike Pence raises hand.

[Pyperkub]

On the other hand, Trump is g getting senile. He'll probably forget...

[hepcat]

He never forgets slights. He lives to be the victim. And for revenge.

[Max Peck]

But Trump forgives Vance?

As the old saying goes: "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

And Trump has no friends, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯