Archives for category: Media
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Heather Cox Richardson: Why Kamala Lost

By dianeravitch
November 11, 2024 //
18

Pundits today have spent time dissecting the election results, many trying to find the one tweak that would have changed the outcome, and suggesting sweeping solutions to the Democrats’ obvious inability to attract voters. There is no doubt that a key factor in voters’ swing to Trump is that they associated the inflation of the post-pandemic months with Biden and turned the incumbents out, a phenomenon seen all over the world.

There is also no doubt that both racism and sexism played an important role in Harris’s defeat. 

But my own conclusion is that both of those things were amplified by the flood of disinformation that has plagued the U.S. for years now. Russian political theorists called the construction of a virtual political reality through modern media “political technology.” They developed several techniques in this approach to politics, but the key was creating a false narrative in order to control public debate. These techniques perverted democracy, turning it from the concept of voters choosing their leaders into the concept of voters rubber-stamping the leaders they had been manipulated into backing. 

In the U.S., pervasive right-wing media, from the Fox News Channel through right-wing podcasts and YouTube channels run by influencers, have permitted Trump and right-wing influencers to portray the booming economy as “failing” and to run away from the hugely unpopular Project 2025. They allowed MAGA Republicans to portray a dramatically falling crime rate as a crime wave and immigration as an invasion. They also shielded its audience from the many statements of Trump’s former staff that he is unfit for office, and even that his chief of staff General John Kelly considers him a fascist and noted that he admires German Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler.

As actor Walter Masterson posted: “I tried to educate people about tariffs, I tried to explain that undocumented immigrants pay billions in taxes and are the foundation of this country. I explained Project 2025, I interviewed to show that they supported it. I can not compete against the propaganda machines of Twitter, Fox News, [Joe Rogan Experience], and NY Post. These spaces will continue to create reality unless we create a more effective way of reaching people.” 

X users noted a dramatic drop in their followers today, likely as bots, no longer necessary, disengaged. 

Many voters who were using their vote to make an economic statement are likely going to be surprised to discover what they have actually voted for. In his victory speech, Trump said the American people had given him an “unprecedented and powerful mandate.” 

White nationalist Nick Fuentes posted, “Your body, my choice. Forever,” and gloated that men will now legally control women’s bodies. His post got at least 22,000 “likes.” Right-wing influencer Benny Johnson, previously funded by Russia, posted: “It is my honor to inform you that Project 2025 was real the whole time.” 

Today, Trump campaign press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump would launch the “largest mass deportation operation” of undocumented immigrants, and the stock in private prison companies GEO Group and CoreCivic  jumped 41% and 29%, respectively. Those jumps were part of a bigger overall jump: the Dow Jones Industrial Average moved up 1,508 points in what Washington Post economic columnist HeatherLong said was the largest post-election jump in more than 100 years. 

As for the lower prices Trump voters wanted, Kate Gibson of CBS today noted that on Monday, the National Retail Federation said that Trump’s proposed tariffs will cost American consumers between $46 billion and $78 billion a year as clothing, toys, furniture, appliances, and footwear all become more expensive. A $50 pair of running shoes, Gibson said, would retail for $59 to $64 under the new tariffs.

U.S. retailers are already preparing to raise prices of items from foreign suppliers, passing to consumers the cost of any future tariffs. 

Trump’s election will also mean he will no longer have to answer to the law for his federal indictments: special counsel Jack Smith is winding them down ahead of Trump’s inauguration. So he will not be tried for retaining classified documents or attempting to overthrow the U.S. government when he lost in 2020. 

This evening, Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán posted on social media that he had just spoken with Trump, and said: “We have big plans for the future!” 

Categories Democracy, Elections, Extremism, Harris, Kamala, Media, Trump

Houston Chronicle Endorses Kamala Harris

By dianeravitch
November 4, 2024 //
0

The Houston Chronicle is the newspaper with the second largest circulation in Texas, behind the Dallas Morning News. The Chronicle endorsed Kamala Harris. This is how you endorse a Democratic candidate in a Deep Red state.

Clawing out of the mud-caked aftermath of a deadly hurricane should be a solemn moment, even in this divided America. Scenes from Helene’s wrath in North Carolina — sedans flung like toy cars, living room couches marinated in floodwaters, towns reduced to war zone rubble — touch a nerve with Houstonians who lived through Harvey and other devastating storms.

These disasters take so much from us, but the aftermath brings hope. On a trip to North Carolina and Georgia, Vice President Kamala Harris worked a hot meal line and remarked at another point: “I think that in these moments of hardship, one of the beauties about who we are as a country is — is people really rally together and show the best of who they are in moments of crisis.”

In Houston, too, neighbors we’ve never met pull up with chainsaws and muck-and-gut gear, Cajun Navy volunteers deploy boats for rooftop rescues. Government makes itself useful, too, and leaders prioritize concern, clear communication and aid to those in need, above everything — including political stumping and tribalism.

Nearly all political leaders — regardless of party, geography or faith tradition — honor this ritual.

Not Donald Trump.

His visit to Helene-devastated areas was a vehicle to spread lies, inflame and divide. His claims that the Biden administration isn’t helping victims because they’re Republican or that FEMA has run out of money — “It’s all gone. They’ve spent it on illegal migrants.” — are baseless. They’ve been refuted by Republican officials and yet, they’re still stirring fear, anger and distrust that have led to threats against FEMA workers and confusion among vulnerable people about whether help is available and whether it can be trusted.

This is how Trump leads. He doesn’t. Even in a desperate hour of need, he exploits. Even from people who have lost everything, he takes.

It’s just one in a sea of examples showing why we believe Trump is unfit for a second term in the White House, and why this editorial board endorses Kamala Harris for president of the United States.

Many who are firmly in Trump’s camp won’t be swayed, we know. Some are fatigued by dire warnings about his threat to democracy. They’re less concerned in this election with abstract notions of patriotism than with how to pay the rent in a vulturous housing market or how to feed the kids when inflation has eaten the grocery budget. We understand Trump’s star power, the kernel of truth in some of his outrageous diatribes and the sense of community he’s built among Americans who feel their grievances have never been adequately addressed.

But we ask those with a shred of doubt to open your minds to inconvenient truths. We ask you to resist the temptation to dismiss the former president as some kind of redeemable shock jock — erratic, entertaining but not really dangerous.

And understand this: A man who will exploit a deadly hurricane will exploit you. A man with six bankruptcies and millions owed that he may not have the cash to pay is trying to win the White House in part to stay out of the poor house. He will not do any better with our economy. The inflation you’re feeling wasn’t invented by Joe Biden. It’s an aftershock of the global pandemic, it hurt wallets all over the world, and it’s finally easing off. As for Trump’s economy as president, rose-colored glasses are doing a number on us. Trump’s 2017 tax cuts didn’t grow the economy like he promised. He added twice as many trillions to the deficit as Biden, not even counting pandemic spending, and added half as many jobs.

Of course, other folks don’t need another reason to vote against Trump.

For them, Jan. 6 is enough, from the lying beforehand to attempting to overthrow a free and fair election to inciting a riotous insurrection at the Capitol. Protest “peacefully,” he said with one breath, and with the other: “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.”

For others, it was the two House impeachments. Or cozying up with dictators. Or nominating Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade. Or the 34 felony convictions stemming from hush-money payments to a porn star. Or the $540 million in legal judgments largely for fraud and defamation, including a finding that he’s liable for committing sexual assault.

For still others, it’s the threats about what he’ll do with a second term, especially after he lost the trust of many decent people who were willing to serve in his Cabinet the first time. Trump’s own vice president, Mike Pence, refuses to endorse his former boss after Trump branded him a traitor and turned loose an angry mob that hunted him during the Capitol riot so they could hang him. The distinguished military men Trump called “my generals” — including John Kelly, homeland security secretary before becoming Trump’s chief of staff; James Mattis, defense secretary; and Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — are warning voters against his dictatorial tendencies. Milley, whom Trump named the highest-ranking military officer in the nation, told Bob Woodward that Trump is “fascist to the core” and “the most dangerous person to this country.”

But don’t take his word for it. Trump himself said the mythical fraud he alleged in the 2020 election “allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”

Those wondering whether he’ll really act on threats to retaliate against political rivals don’t have to wonder: he already did in his first term, as The New York Times has reported. From Hillary Clinton to former FBI director James Comey, to Trump’s own former national security adviser John Bolton, those who crossed Trump found themselves facing costly, grueling IRS audits, Justice Department investigations and in Bolton’s case, a criminal probe and lawsuit when he tried to publish a book critical of Trump.   

So yes, Harris’ best asset is that she’s not Trump. Beyond her basic qualifications of human decency, self-control and mature leadership skills, her career path from law enforcement to the U.S. Senate to the vice president’s office illustrates independence, drive and a steely spine. And perhaps as important, a propensity to give more than take. Prosecuting child molesters and rapists required patience and compassion to earn the trust of frightened children. Later, prosecuting transnational cartel members required guts.

From prosecutor to district attorney to the state attorney general of California, it wasn’t an obvious trajectory for the daughter of freedom-fighter academics, her Indian-born mother a scientist, her Jamaican-born father an economist. Harris says her mother modeled civic leadership, exposed her to history and the American principles of freedom and equity and took her protests where she had a “stroller’s-eye view” of the civil right’s movement.

In her book, “The Truths We Hold,” Harris said she wanted to fight for justice from the inside, where she hoped to dispel the false choice between being tough on crime and smart on crime: “You can want the police to stop crime in your neighborhood and also want them to stop using excessive force,” she wrote. “…You can believe in the need for consequence and accountability, especially for serious criminals, and also oppose unjust incarceration.” She cites a reentry program for low-level offenders as a success and yet, she’s expressed regretfor the unintended consequences of a truancy crackdown that landed some parents in jail.

As a U.S. senator, she prioritized health care and criminal justice, even working with Kentucky Republican U.S. Sen. Rand Paul on bail reform that would prioritize the risk someone poses to society over their ability to pay. Assertive and clever enough in her prosecutorial style, she turned heads in Senate hearings when she stumped then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh with probing questions.

She’s no flame-thrower. She’s no Marxist. Nor is she a superstar able to ace press conference improv or deliver spell-binding speeches that break free of stale scripts. She’s changed her stances on a few things, such as whether to ban fracking; now she says no. But that’s OK.

Magnetism, private jets, four-hour rallies and a lack of self reflection have never been strong predictors of a successful American presidency. She’s fearless and quick on her feet and apparently a quick study, having transformed from a bench warmer VP to a respectable presidential contender in three months. She’s a champion of federal protections for abortion rights, desperately needed in Texas where an extreme ban doesn’t include exceptions for rape or incest or enough protections for women with severe pregnancy complications.

With little time, she’s come up with some workable policy ideas that would help Americans afford their first homes and provide expanded child tax credits to the parents of newborn babies. On immigration, she’s backed a tough bipartisan border bill that Trump undermined for political gain.

And there must be something genuine, and maybe a little magical, about a person who has obtained elite status in one of modern society’s toughest survivor challenges: She seems to be a truly beloved step-parent.

We don’t expect this endorsement to change many minds. We can’t inspire voter participation like Taylor Swift or Beyonce. We won’t buy it like Elon Musk. 

We just ask you to consider one question before you cast perhaps the most consequential vote of your lifetime:

If the brown floodwaters were rising around your house and the Cajun Navy could only send a small boat, who would you trust to pick you up: Kamala Harris or Donald Trump? 

We know who we’d trust. 

Categories Elections, Harris, Kamala, Houston, Media, Trump

Washington Post Loses at Least 250K Subscribers After Non-Endorsement

By dianeravitch
November 1, 2024 //
13

After Jeff Bezos, billionaire owner of The Washington Post, stopped publication of the editorial board’s endorsement of Kamala Harris, digital subscribers revolted. According to a report in The Post, at least 250,000 canceled their subscriptions.

Past and present journalists at the newspaper urged readers not to cancel. Loss of revenue means future layoffs.

Even with the cancellation of the endorsement, the Post remains the most forthright and persistent critic of Trump and his racism, misogyny, xenophobia, as well as his all-around unfitness for office.

Those who look for a future with a stable, functioning two-party system–post-MAGA–should resubscribe.

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Elections, Ethics, Freedom of the Press, Media, Trump

Washington Post: Trump’s Vulgarity Drags the Nation’s Politics into the Gutter

By dianeravitch
October 30, 2024 //
22

I did not cancel my subscription to the Washington Post despite the fact that I was outraged by billionaire Jeff Bezos’s censorship of the editorial board, which intended to endorse Kamala Harris.

I expected that the response of the editorial board and the opinion writ were a would double down on their contempt for the insurrectionist, lying former president.

As this editorial today shows, the editorial board will not be silenced. In this editorial, it draws a straight line between democracy and civility, a character trait that Trump knows not.

Unless Bezos replaces the editorial board with MAGA types, the WaPo editorials will dole out contempt for Trump every day that remains of the campaign. The last paragraph, in particular, is a gem.

Think of it as slow-walking its endorsement of Kamala.

Democracy depends on many things: institutions, traditions, public legitimacy and, yes, a culture of civility. The peaceful transfer of power requires people to have at least a minimum degree of trust in their fellow citizens — that the stakes are not existential. In this regard, former president Donald Trump showed, in his closing argument at a raucous rally at Madison Square Garden, that whether he wins or loses on Nov. 5, he has already done severe damage to American politics by coarsening and corroding public discourse.

Seeking to limit the fallout after a rally speaker referred to Puerto Rico as “a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean,” campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt lamented on Monday on Fox News: “It’s sad that the media will pick up on one joke that was made by a comedian rather than the truths that were shared by the phenomenal list of speakers that we had.”

Here are some of the “truths” from the other “phenomenal” speakers, none of which the Trump campaign disavowed: Businessman Grant Cardone likened Vice President Kamala Harris to a prostitute. “Her and her pimp handlers will destroy our country,” he said. David Rem, billed as a childhood friend of Mr. Trump’s, called Ms. Harris the “Antichrist” and “devil” while waving a cross onstage.

Radio host Sid Rosenberg called Hillary Clinton a son of a b—- and dropped an f-bomb as he said that all Democrats are “degenerates … lowlifes.” Rudy Giuliani, disbarred over his misconduct as a lawyer for Mr. Trump’s effort to block the 2020 election results, said Ms. Harris is “on the side of the terrorists” in the Israel-Gaza conflict. Donald Trump Jr. claimed Democrats want to “replace” Americans with immigrants.

The stand-up comedian who made that nasty crack about Puerto Rico, Tony Hinchcliffe, made other tasteless ethnic jokes about African Americans, Latinos and Jews. The Bulwark reported that Trump campaign staffers reviewed a script of Mr. Hinchcliffe’s routine in advance and asked him to excise only a line that referred to Ms. Harris as a “c—.”

Even so, a pro-Trump group funded by Elon Musk, who also spoke at Sunday’s rally, posted on X, the platform he owns, and later deleted a video that referred to Ms. Harris as the c-word. After some innuendo, the video’s narrator clarifies that they mean she’s a communist.

To be sure, Mr. Trump has been destabilizing civil discourse since even before he started his 2016 campaign: It was in 2011 that he started voicing support for the false notion that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Yet in the final weeks of this election, he seems to be making the normalization of incivility one of his campaign’s de facto objectives.

He opened a rally this month in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, by commenting on the size of golfer Arnold Palmer’s genitalia. Mr. Trump told the crowd that night that his wife, Melania, has urged him to use less foul language and that evangelical leader Franklin Graham wrote him a letter pleading the same case. His punchline is that he cannot help himself because Ms. Harris has been a “s—” vice president and everything she touches turns to “s—.” The crowd started chanting “s—” in Latrobe. A top-selling shirt outside his rallies describes Ms. Harris as a “hoe.”

True, Mr. Trump’s campaign is not only a cause of this society’s spreading incivility but a consequence of it. Moreover, norms regarding profanity follow a cultural dynamic separate from politics, and the culture is more permissive about such things than it once was. This may explain why Ms. Harris has also occasionally been using four-letter words on the stump. She swore up a storm in a Rolling Stone interview and said being vice president has made her more profane. Her running mate, Tim Walz, called Mr. Musk “a dips—” during a rally last week. Not a great example. But Mr. Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally and events like it are in a class by themselves, not least in their threatening tone.

When he finally took the stage on Sunday, the former president declared without irony: “The Republican Party has really become the party of inclusion.” Then, over 80 minutes, he promised to invoke the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport undocumented immigrants, called Democrats “the enemy within” and the mainstream media “the enemy of the people,” described the United States as “an occupied country,” and predicted Nov. 5 will bring “Liberation Day.” Even without a vulgarity, it was the most offensive language of all.

Categories Bigotry, Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Freedom of the Press, Media, Trump

Kamala Agreed to Do “The Joe Rogan Show” But He Set Conditions She Would Not Meet

By dianeravitch
October 29, 2024 //
16

Jonathan V. Last writes on The Bulwark about why Kamala won’t be heard on Joe Togan’s podcast. It is a wildly popular podcast, especially among young men. He set conditions that she could not meet in the last week of the campaign.

Last writes:

This morning we got word that Kamala Harris tried to do the Joe Rogan show. She proposed a date and was willing to sit with him for an hour.

Rogan balked.

Rogan posted on Twitter @joerogan

Also, for the record the Harris campaign has not passed on doing the podcast. They offered a date for Tuesday, but I would have had to travel to her and they only wanted to do an hour. I strongly feel the best way to do it is in the studio in Austin. My sincere wish is to just have a nice conversation and get to know her as a human being. I really hope we can make it happen.

Jonathan Last commented:

So Rogan’s demand was that the sitting vice president detour from her campaign in swing states to come to him in Austin and also that she give him—what?—three hours?

And if she was only willing to give him an hour, and he had to travel to her? Well, then he thought his audience would be better off not hearing from her at all.

I am sorry but that is not on the level.

This is just one more area in which Kamala Harris has done—or tried to do—everything that was asked of her in the name of outreach to the great and good American people who get their news from a guy who talks about sucking his own dick.

Kamala Harris has a 50-50 chance to win this election.

But I want to head off arguments that if she loses it was somehow her fault. That she did something wrong, or didn’t do something important.

Because here is the rock-bottom fact: No reasonable observer could have asked her to run a better campaign.

Kamala Harris became the presumptive Democratic nominee a hundred days ago. In that time she:

  • Unified the Democratic party.
  • Reversed Biden’s polling deficit and took the lead over Trump.
  • Organized a successful convention.
  • Created a policy framework for her prospective administration.
  • Pivoted to the center on nearly every issue: From domestic energy production, to gun reform, to immigration.
  • Absolutely schlonged Trump in their debate.
  • Performed somewhere between adequately and exceptionally in every single media interview.
  • Spent time with several non-traditional media outlets.
  • Gave almost unfailingly good speeches in front of giant crowds.
  • Performed heroic levels outreach to Republicans and swing voters by appearing on Fox News and campaigning with the likes of Liz Cheney—while explicitly inviting and welcoming Republican voters into her coalition.

Harris did not play perfect baseball—you or I could sketch out a handful of things we wish she had done differently. Or better. But the perfect campaign does not exist. 

Seriously: This has been the most error-free presidential campaign in memory and yet Harris hasn’t played it safe. She combined aggressive strategy with disciplined execution. In terms of campaigns as they exist in the actual, real world? This is as good as it gets.

Which is why, if Harris loses, it will be incorrect to say that it was somehow her fault. That if only she had done [this thing I like] or said [this other thing that’s important to me], then she would have beaten Trump.

Because not only has Harris run the best possible campaign, but Trump has run an entirely mask-off campaign. He has told America who he is and what he wants.

He wants to round up immigrants and put them in camps.

He wants to deploy the military against domestic groups he disfavors.

He wants to eradicate the “vermin” who are “poisoning the blood” of the country.

He wants to put crazy people like RFK and Elon Musk in charge of large swaths of the federal government.

He wants to fire Jack Smith and make the criminal charges against himself go away.

He wants to force Ukraine to negotiate a ceasefire in terms favorable to Russia.

Believe me: If Trump wins, it isn’t going to be because Kamala Harris gave a bad answer to a question on The View.

It will be because some large percentage of the American public looked at these two candidates and decided that they wanted Trump.

Attempts to blame Harris or find an alternate reason for why voters didn’t consciously choose an authoritarian strongman will be an exercise in reality avoidance. It will be an attempt to avoid grappling with who, and what, our country is.

2. Stories We Tell Ourselves

In a sense, the 2024 election has been an exercise in creating rationalizations in order to avoid reality.

The pattern was simple: People would come up with a rationalization for why 47 percent of the country wanted Trump. Said rationalization would be demolished. Someone would come up with a new rationalization.

  • The only reason people supported Trump was inflation.
    • Then inflation came down, and people kept supporting Trump.³
  • The only reason people supported Trump was high interest rates.⁴
    • Then rates got cut, and people kept supporting Trump.
  • The only reason people supported Trump was crime.
    • Then we had two years with the steepest drops in crime rates in history, and people kept supporting Trump. ⁵
  • The only reason people supported Trump was Biden’s age—they were deeply concerned about his mental ability to do the job.
    • Then the Democratic nomination went to a nimble and vigorous Kamala Harris; Trump became the addled geriatric in the race; and people kept supporting Trump.

How many times do we have to do this? 

Imagine that it’s November 10 and Trump has lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College. People will be desperate to come up with explanations.

  • It was immigration. Sure, the Democrats passed the toughest immigration bill ever, only to have Trump kill it. And sure, Biden closed the border.
    • But if only they’d done that sooner. Then voters would have rejected Trump.⁶
  • It was Harris’s liberal past.
    • If only she had the exact same policy positions as Tim Ryan or Joe Manchin. Then voters would have rejected Trump.⁷
  • It was Joe Rogan.
    • If only she’d gone to Austin and given him three hours. Then male swing-voters in [Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, whatever] would have rejected Trump.

But none of these rationalizations will be any more true than the arguments that what voters really cared about was crime, or Biden’s age.

Categories Elections, Harris, Kamala, Media

Alexandra Petri: WaPo Humorist Endorses Kamala, as Her Publisher Refuses to

By dianeravitch
October 28, 2024 //
7

Alexandra Petri is the humorist for The Washington Post. In her column, she endorsed Kamala Harris. She called her column “It Has Fallen to Me, the Humor Columnist, to Endorse Kamala Harris for President.” This is why I didn’t cancel my subscription to The Washington Post. I want to see many ways the opinion writers devise to torture Jeff Bezos.

She wrote:

The Washington Post is not bothering to endorse a candidate in the 2024 presidential election. (Jeff Bezos, the founder of Blue Origin and the founder and executive chairman of Amazon and Amazon Web Services, also owns The Post.)

We as a newspaper suddenly remembered, less than two weeks before the election, that we had a robust tradition 50 years ago of not telling anyone what to do with their vote for president.

It is time we got back to those “roots,” I’m told!
Roots are important, of course. As recently as the 1970s, The Post did not endorse a candidate for president. As recently as centuries ago, there was no Post and the country had a king! Go even further back, and the entire continent of North America was totally uninhabitable, and we were all spineless creatures who lived in the ocean, and certainly there were no Post subscribers.

But if I were the paper, I would be a little embarrassed that it has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to make our presidential endorsement. I will spare you the suspense: I am endorsing Kamala Harris for president, because I like elections and want to keep having them.

Let me tell you something. I am having a baby (It’s a boy!), and he is expected on Jan. 6, 2025 (It’s a … Proud Boy?). This is either slightly funny or not at all funny. This whole election, I have been lurching around, increasingly heavily pregnant, nauseated, unwieldy, full of the commingled hopes and terrors that come every time you are on the verge of introducing a new person to the world.

Well, that world will look very different, depending on the outcome of November’s election, and I care which world my kid gets born into. I also live here myself. And I happen to care about the people who are already here, in this world. Come to think of it, I have a lot of reasons for caring how the election goes. I think it should be obvious that this is not an election for sitting out.

The case for Donald Trump is “I erroneously think the economy used to be better? I know that he has made many ominous-sounding threats about mass deportations, going after his political enemies, shutting down the speech of those who disagree with him (especially media outlets), and that he wants to make things worse for almost every category of person — people with wombs, immigrants, transgender people, journalists, protesters, people of color — but … maybe he’ll forget.”

“But maybe he’ll forget” is not enough to hang a country on!

Embarrassingly enough, I like this country. But everything good about it has been the product of centuries of people who had no reason to hope for better but chose to believe that better things were possible, clawing their way uphill — protesting, marching, voting, and, yes, doing the work of journalism — to build this fragile thing called democracy. But to be fragile is not the same as to be perishable, as G.K. Chesterton wrote. Simply do not break a glass, and it will last a thousand years. Smash it, and it will not last an instant. Democracy is like that: fragile, but only if you shatter it.

Trust is like that, too, as newspapers know.
I’m just a humor columnist. I only know what’s happening because our actual journalists are out there reporting, knowing that their editors have their backs, that there’s no one too powerful to report on, that we would never pull a punch out of fear. That’s what our readers deserve and expect: that we are saying what we really think, reporting what we really see; that if we think Trump should not return to the White House and Harris would make a fine president, we’re going to be able to say so.

That’s why I, the humor columnist, am endorsing Kamala Harris by myself!

Categories Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Harris, Kamala, Humor, Media, Trump

Why I Did Not Cancel My Subscription to the Washington Post

By dianeravitch
October 26, 2024 //
61

Last night, I read the hundreds of letters to the editor of the Washington Post about Bezos’ decision not to endorse. By now, there are probably thousands. Almost all of them said: I have canceled my subscription.”

Good for them.

I am NOT canceling my subscription.

I enjoy reading Dana Milbank, Jennifer Rubin, Eugene Robinson, Alexander Petri, and other columnists.

I applaud them for dissenting from Bezos’ mandate.

They will vent their rage for the next 10 days. At Bezos and especially at Trump.

And of course there will continue to be hard-hitting investigations.

I want to read what they write.

Categories Accountability, Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom to Read, Media, Trump

Washington Post: 17 Opinion Writers Disagree with Bezos’ Fiat to Stop Endorsing For President

By dianeravitch
October 26, 2024 //
9

It’s clear that billionaire Jeff Bezos told the editorial board not to publish its editorial endorsing Kamala Harris. The editorial was already written, and Bezos stopped it. The order came down through Will Lewis, whom Bezos hired away from Rupert Murdoch’s rightwing publishing empire.

No one knows Bezos’s reason or reasons. He has said nothing. Lewis released a statement pretending that the censorship of the editorial board by the owner was an act of high principle. As editor Ruth Marcus wrote, had the decision been announced a year ago, it would have had at least the patina of principle. Coming as it did only days before the election, the decision seems craven and unethical.

This is what 17 of the Post’s opinion writers said in response.

The Washington Post’s decision not to make an endorsement in the presidential campaign is a terrible mistake. It represents an abandonment of the fundamental editorial convictions of the newspaper that we love. This is a moment for the institution to be making clear its commitment to democratic values, the rule of law and international alliances, and the threat that Donald Trump poses to them — the precise points The Post made in endorsing Trump’s opponents in 2016 and 2020. There is no contradiction between The Post’s important role as an independent newspaper and its practice of making political endorsements, both as a matter of guidance to readers and as a statement of core beliefs. That has never been more true than in the current campaign. An independent newspaper might someday choose to back away from making presidential endorsements. But this isn’t the right moment, when one candidate is advocating positions that directly threaten freedom of the press and the values of the Constitution.

Karen Attiah
Perry Bacon Jr.
Matt Bai
Max Boot

Kate Cohen
E.J. Dionne Jr.
Lee Hockstader
David Ignatius
Heather Long
Ruth Marcus
Dana Milbank
Alexandra Petri
Catherine Rampell
Eugene Robinson
Jennifer Rubin
Karen Tumulty
Erik Wemple

Categories Accountability, Censorship, Democracy, Disruption, Elections, Freedom of the Press, Media

Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post: “I Dissent”

By dianeravitch
October 26, 2024 //
16

Ruth Marcus has been a writer for The Washington Post for forty years. Yesterday, she wrote a principled dissent to the decision of Jeff Bezos, the billionaire who owns the newspaper, to stop the editorial board from publishing its endorsement of Kamala Harris. In addition, 16 opinion writers published a statement criticizing the decision.

She wrote:

I love The Washington Post, deep in my bones. Last month marked my 40th year of proud work for the institution, in the newsroom and in the Opinions section. I have never been more disappointed in the newspaper than I am today, with the tragically flawed decision not to make an endorsement in the presidential race.

At a moment when The Post should have been stepping forward to sound the clarion call about the multiple dangers that Donald Trump poses to the nation and the world, it has chosen instead to pull back. That is the wrong choice at the worst possible time.

I write — I dissent — from the perspective of someone who spent two decades as a member of The Post’s editorial board. (I stepped away last year.) From that experience, I can say: you win some and lose some. No one, perhaps not even the editorial page editor, agrees with every position the board takes. At bottom, the owner of the newspaper is entitled to have an editorial page that reflects the owner’s point of view.

In addition, let’s not overestimate the significance of presidential endorsements. As much as we might like to believe otherwise, they have limited persuasive value for the vanishingly small number of undecided voters. They are distinct from endorsements for local office, involving issues and personalities about which voters might have scant knowledge; in these circumstances, editorial boards can serve as useful, trusted proxies. A presidential endorsement serves a different purpose: to reflect the soul and underlying values of the institution.

A vibrant newspaper can survive and even flourish without making presidential endorsements; The Post itself declined to make endorsements for many years before it began doing so regularly in 1976, as publisher and chief executive officer William Lewis pointed out in his explanation for the decision to halt the practice.

If The Post had announced after this election that it would stop endorsing presidential candidates, I might have disagreed with that decision, but I would not consider it out of bounds. The practice of endorsements comes with some costs. The newsroom and the Opinions section maintain rigorous separation, but it is difficult to make that case to an official aggrieved by the failure to secure an endorsement.

This is not the time to make such a shift. It is the time to speak out, as loudly and convincingly as possible, to make the case that we made in 2016 and again in 2020: that Trump is dangerously unfit to hold the highest office in the land.

This was The Post on Oct. 13, 2016: “Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is dreadful, that is true — uniquely unqualified as a presidential candidate. If we believed that Ms. Clinton were the lesser of two evils, we might well urge you to vote for her anyway — that is how strongly we feel about Mr. Trump,” the editorial board wrote in endorsing Hillary Clinton. Trump, it — we because I was a member of the board then — said, “has shown himself to be bigoted, ignorant, deceitful, narcissistic, vengeful, petty, misogynistic, fiscally reckless, intellectually lazy, contemptuous of democracy and enamored of America’s enemies. As president, he would pose a grave danger to the nation and the world.”

Every word of that proved sadly true.

This was The Post on Sept. 28, 2020: It — we — called Trump “the worst president of modern times,” in endorsing Joe Biden “Democracy is at risk, at home and around the world,” the editorial warned. “The nation desperately needs a president who will respect its public servants; stand up for the rule of law; acknowledge Congress’s constitutional role; and work for the public good, not his private benefit.”

What has changed since then? Trump’s behavior has only gotten worse — and we have learned only more disturbing things about him. Most significantly, he disputed the results of a fair election that he lost and sought to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. He encouraged an insurrection that threatened the life of his own vice president — leading to his second impeachment — and then defended the insurrectionists as “hostages.” He will not accept the reality of his 2020 loss or pledge to respect the results of next month’s voting, unless it concludes in his favor.

He has threatened to “terminate” the Constitution. He has demeaned his opponent, Vice President Kamala Harris, as “mentally impaired.” He has vowed to fire the special counsel who brought two criminal cases against him and “go after” his political enemies. He wants to use the military to pursue domestic opponents — “radical left lunatics” like former House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) or Rep. Adam Schiff (D-California) — and rout out “the enemy from within.”

I could keep going but you know all this, and you get my point: What self-respecting news organization could abandon its entrenched practice of making presidential endorsements in the face of all this?

Lewis, in his publisher’s note, called this move “consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects.” It was, he added, “a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions — whom to vote for as the next president.”

But asserting that doesn’t make it so. Withholding judgment does not serve our readers — it disrespects them. And expressing our institutional bottom line on Trump would not undermine our independence any more than our choices did in 1976, 1980, 1984, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, 2016 or 2020. We were an independent newspaper then and, I hope, remain one today.

Many friends and readers have reached out today, saying they planned to cancel their subscriptions or had already done so. I understand, and share, your anger. I think the best answer, for you and for me, may be embodied in this column: You are reading it, on the same platform, in the same newspaper, that has so gravely disappointed you.

Categories Accountability, Censorship, Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Failure, Freedom of the Press, Harris, Kamala, Media, Trump

Orlando Sentinel Will No Longer Endorse Candidates for President, Governor, or U.S. Senate

By dianeravitch
October 25, 2024 //
26

On October 7, The Orlando Sentinel published the following editorial. Note that the newspaper is owned by Alden Global Capital, which has bought up many other newspapers and gutted their newsrooms.

The Orlando Sentinel and South Florida Sun Sentinel will no longer endorse candidates in races for governor, Senate or president, including this year’s races.

This is a company-wide decision and very limited in scope. It applies only to endorsements in these two races. All other endorsements remain entirely within each newspaper’s discretion, and we are working hard on our endorsements for U.S. House, the Legislature, city and county commissioners and mayors and school board races.

Any public officials who are popping champagne at this announcement might want to re-cork their celebrations. Tribune Publishing’s two Florida papers, the Orlando Sentinel and Sun Sentinel, will continue our tradition of robust, well-researched editorials that hold Florida’s leaders responsible for their actions. When those decisions are not in the state’s best interests or driven by partisan ulterior motives, we will continue to say so.

This restriction is in line with corporate-level dictates in other media companies, some of which have eliminated endorsements entirely. It’s well within the long-standing tradition of American editorial pages, which leaves the final say on endorsements to each paper’s publisher.

Since Alden Global Capital took over Tribune Publishing in May 2021, its leaders have made it clear that they support robust, local editorial pages. This is the first time they have asserted their traditional role, but this discussion of which races to endorse in occurs at newspapers every day in the run-up to an election. Company leaders acted out of concern that contests for president, U.S. Senate and governor are becoming more national in character, and that our editorial advocacy is strongest locally.

Corporate leaders also worry that common ground is being lost to culture wars. We’ve all seen society become more polarized. Look at what’s happened since Florida’s 2018 gubernatorial election. Could we have imagined that we would be so deeply divided over how to handle the pandemic that we would see shrieking parents dragged out of school board meetings? Or that partisan voices on both sides of the divide would take turns decrying law enforcement and medical professionals as villains or heroes?

But we aren’t going to cede that common ground on the eve of a high profile, surprisingly competitive Senate race and a contest for governor widely seen as a prelude to the 2024 presidential election (with another likely player in his Palm Beach mansion).

Florida’s tradition of spirited journalistic debate is often shaped by editorials, but also informed by readers’ letters to the editor and columns by us, readers and public officials. They are the heartbeat of our opinion pages, and in the great Florida tradition, our readers are not shy about telling us when they think we’ve gotten it wrong.

We’ll continue our work of endorsing many candidates for local, regional and state office, judgeships, Congress, ballot questions and constitutional amendments. We’ll celebrate fact and expose fiction. And to quote Tom Petty, we won’t back down. Nor are we expected to.

Our corporate leadership has made that crystal clear. We know our readers will have plenty to say about this decision. You’ll find our letter guidelines at the bottom of this editorial.

At the end of the day, we suspect even our toughest critics will agree: We all love Florida at the top of our lungs, con mucho gusto. That hasn’t changed, and it won’t.

Categories Accountability, Discipline, Elections, Harris, Kamala, Media, Trump
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »