Why LATimes and Washington Post Presidential Non-Endorsements Are So Problematic

The previous post concerned how the billionaire owners of the LA Times and Washington Post blocked their editorial boards from endorsing Kamala Harris for president and why I cancelled my subscription to the LA Times. [I don't have a subscription to the Washington Post.] 

We know that Jeff Bezos has other business deals with the US government [sorry, there's a paywall] - with Amazon and with other ventures - that a Trump presidency would, in Bezos' mind - be quashed.  And he may be right.  Patrick Soon-Shiong also has other businesses that possibly could be jeopardized by a Trump presidency.  Plus Trump has said that he would punish media and others who oppose him.  

I focused on what appears to be their fear that if Trump were elected, they would be punished for such an endorsement.  I compared that behavior to the behavior of the Washington Post and NYTimes when they published the Pentagon Papers in 1971 - a daring display of courage and the power of press.  

I spent more time on the Pentagon Papers than I intended to, because I realized that while I was a young adult at the time, anyone under 53 today, hadn't even been born yet.  If 'Pentagon Papers' means anything to most of them, it probably is pretty superficial.  

Think what people born after next year will know and understand about the 2024 election in 2077!  The historic lessons get lost if we don't keep them alive.  

So I decided to postpone the second part of that post to another post.  

Here's the part I left for a future post - putting their actions into context using Vaclav Havel's "The Power of the Powerless."  You can see the whole essay at the link.  Or a much briefer overview at Wikipedia.

It's a long essay, written by then Czech playwright, and later, president, about how people in an authoritarian regime could still maintain their freedom.  He's specifically talking about the Soviet form of dictatorship that ruled Czechoslovakia at that time.  There are many people with greater expertise on Havel's work than I.  But this is my limited take on this situation.  

When I heard about the two billionaire owners of two major newspapers killing editorials that would have endorsed Kamala Harris for president, the part I thought of was the story of the greengrocer putting up signs in his shop window.   You can read it below.  I've highlighted some of it in red.  

"III 

"The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

"I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say.

"Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

"Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth. The greengrocer would be embarrassed and ashamed to put such an unequivocal statement of his own degradation in the shop window, and quite naturally so, for he is a human being and thus has a sense of his own dignity. To overcome this complication, his expression of loyalty must take the form of a sign which, at least on its textual surface, indicates a level of disinterested conviction. It must allow the greengrocer to say, "What's wrong with the workers of the world uniting?" Thus the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. And that something is ideology.

"Ideology is a specious way of relating to the world. It offers human beings the illusion of an identity, of dignity, and of morality while making it easier for them to part with them. As the repository of something suprapersonal and objective, it enables people to deceive their conscience and conceal their true position and their inglorious modus vivendi, both from the world and from themselves. It is a very pragmatic but, at the same time, an apparently dignified way of legitimizing what is above, below, and on either side. It is directed toward people and toward God. It is a veil behind which human beings can hide their own fallen existence, their trivialization, and their adaptation to the status quo. It is an excuse that everyone can use, from the greengrocer, who conceals his fear of losing his job behind an alleged interest in the unification of the workers of the world, to the highest functionary, whose interest in staying in power can be cloaked in phrases about service to the working class. The primary excusatory function of ideology, therefore, is to provide people, both as victims and pillars of the post-totalitarian system, with the illusion that the system is in harmony with the human order and the order of the universe."

The situation of the greengrocer under Soviet authoritarianism and the Bezos and Soon-Shiong is not a perfect analogy, but it shows how the no-holds-barred style of Trump causes even billionaires to modify their behavior rather than draw unwanted attention to themselves.

The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message

In the case of both newspaper owners, not publishing an endorsement of Harris was a sign to Trump with a clear message that they didn't want him upset at them if he were elected.  They didn't want their companies punished for supporting Harris.

the sign helps the greengrocer to conceal from himself the low foundations of his obedience, at the same time concealing the low foundations of power. It hides them behind the facade of something high. 

Not endorsing Harris was the equivalent of putting the a sign in the window that says, 'we will not oppose you' to Trump.  The low foundation of their obedience. We do not want you to punish us in some way.  And the low foundation of Trump's power is that the endorsements were perfectly legal and normal, yet they were afraid to publish the endorsements.  

The 'ideology' they were hiding behind was the idea that newspapers should  maintain "political neutrality," should be objective observers that don't take sides, but impartially report the news.  Of course, impartiality is not possible.  A news outlet can try to report objective facts, but the employees and owners all have values that color what events are reported and how they are reported.  Or, in this case, not reported.  

And the idea that newspapers must be objective observers and non-partisan is one that many hold, but it is not historically the only norm.  

Early Colonial newspapers were often "a sideline for printers."  Benjamin Franklin was such a printer with a newspaper on the side.  And they were quite partisan.  During that era John Peter Zenger was found innocent when a governor tried to shut down his partisan attacks.  Do kids still learn about Zenger in school these days?

The fact that Trump has threatened to attack the media as president and more recently to talk about his political enemies being executed - as he let the January 6 mob erect a gallows for his then Vice President - is all the more reason that they should have endorsed his opponent.  

Another issue this raises is the phenomenon of billionaires buying existing newspapers.  On the one hand, this is a way for some newspapers to survive.  And it's probably better than newspapers being owned by corporations that own many newspapers and thus limit the number of different voices available to the public.  I say newspapers here, but this also applies to radio and television.  

And yet, at the same time, the internet has provided access to way more voices than ever.  Perhaps we're just waiting for the dust to settle.  Or the Musks of the world are going to buy up those voices.  It's a time of change and we have to just hold on until it becomes more settled.  

But the problem of billionaires owning papers is that they have large financial interests that can easily come into conflict with the objectivity of the paper they own.  In Bezos' case, Amazon has interest in large government contracts which some have suggested as a reason he vetoed the endorsement.  

The key point in all this for me, the reason I thought it important enough to cancel my LA Times subscription, is the issue Havel raises about having personal freedom, no matter how small, and to use it.  

Authoritarians have control because people voluntarily obey them.  Even when there is no law and no order, people anticipate what the regime wants them to do, and do it.  People cede their autonomy voluntarily.  As did the two owners of the newspapers.  And as the many Republican politicians who trashed Trump during the 2016 primaries - Cruz, Graham, Rubio, etc. - but then fell in line to support him.  Trump is ruthless, but Stormy Daniels and E. Jean Carroll stood up to him and won.  

If Trump wins Tuesday, and we get conflicting reports on how close it is, we will all be facing life in an authoritarian state.  Understanding Havel will be important.