I was looking forward to your thoughts about this issue and am grateful that you chose to write on the topic!
It's true, and I agree that smart people can come to different conclusions about the value of an endorsement. But the timing of the decisions and the subsequent reporting of the process at both the Post and the LAT make it very, very clear that the opinion staff and ed boards understood that those papers would be making an endorsement, only to have the rug pulled by ownership at the last minute.
Notwithstanding the credibility bestowed on Bezos by his University of Confident Rich Guy journalism degree, overruling the world's best writers at the last minute, for pretextual reasons that **did not arise at the last minute**, doesn't increase trust in a paper - it does the opposite. As we can see, that damage has already objectively occurred.
It's a shame, because the Post does great news reporting. But I'm happy that subscribers have spoken with their wallets to pull the only lever that we still have.
Thanks for your astute comment. I understand the idea of pulling one's subscription as a protest. But, in support of the journalists at the paper, I'm hanging onto mine. Regrettably, punishing the owner means far too much collateral damage, in my view.
Please continue to share your insights on these pieces.
I was looking forward to your thoughts about this issue and am grateful that you chose to write on the topic!
It's true, and I agree that smart people can come to different conclusions about the value of an endorsement. But the timing of the decisions and the subsequent reporting of the process at both the Post and the LAT make it very, very clear that the opinion staff and ed boards understood that those papers would be making an endorsement, only to have the rug pulled by ownership at the last minute.
Notwithstanding the credibility bestowed on Bezos by his University of Confident Rich Guy journalism degree, overruling the world's best writers at the last minute, for pretextual reasons that **did not arise at the last minute**, doesn't increase trust in a paper - it does the opposite. As we can see, that damage has already objectively occurred.
It's a shame, because the Post does great news reporting. But I'm happy that subscribers have spoken with their wallets to pull the only lever that we still have.
Jeremy,
Thanks for your astute comment. I understand the idea of pulling one's subscription as a protest. But, in support of the journalists at the paper, I'm hanging onto mine. Regrettably, punishing the owner means far too much collateral damage, in my view.
Please continue to share your insights on these pieces.
JW