#1017 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Friday November 1)

Good morning,

JOURNALISM, DEMOCRACY, AND PLUTOCRACY

Against my better judgment, I’m writing this without sitting on it, editing it, or researching further. These are my thoughts about what the recent Washington Post and Los Angeles Times decisions not to endorse a candidate supported by both of their editorial staffs says about the media, a growing plutocratic “know-it-all” class, and a democracy ill-served by their interests. Today, I’m mad—mad about the diminishment of the media, the concentration of power, and the corrupting effect of enormous wealth on the health of our democracy.

As a big fan of journalism, I have watched journalists attacked as the “enemy of the people” by an American wannabe strongman and his sycophants, the decline of iconic “brand names” of thoughtful, in-depth reporting, and the shuttering of local news outlets. Beyond a degree of sadness and nostalgia is a concern for how these related threads lead us to a darker, less-informed place controlled by relatively few extraordinarily wealthy individuals. Before these people came onto the scene, one could bemoan (as I have) the reduction in the number of foreign bureaus, the reduction in the number of journalists in newsrooms, and less content. Not only do I think the reporting of news is critical to any civil society—something our Founders believed essential to a functioning and healthy democracy—but so is the deep analysis and investigative reporting that both informs and refines our political life and understanding of the issues.

When billionaires began acquiring some of the largest news organizations, I thought that this was a positive for maintaining and nurturing a healthy national media. What great civic-mindedness, selflessness, and love for an institution that is so critical to our democracy! How wonderful it seemed that people who benefited from the opportunity accorded to them by living in this innovative country were giving back. They seemed to me like modern-day Andrew Carnegies.

But the past couple of weeks have exploded my euphoria over the lifeline accorded these institutions with a sad dose of reality. These modern-day plutocrats could not separate their self-interest and their fear of retribution from the responsibility to speak truth and state opinions, even when they might be uncomfortable. The owners of these papers fail to understand the critical role newspapers have paid in our nation’s history. They were unable to separate their own interest from the journalistic integrity of their institutions.

Both The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times are owned by extraordinarily wealthy individuals whom until now I thought had kept their hands out of the workings of these venerable institutions. But, with the metaphorical stroke of a pen, both of these papers, which have been endorsing presidential candidates for decades and which have endorsed candidates for local and state office in this election cycle, decided not to endorse a candidate for president. This on first blush might seem a non-event. And had it occurred outside of an election cycle—much less one as fraught and close as this one—it might have made for an interesting debate and a quiet resetting of expectations. In the end, of course, the Publisher of a newspaper has the discretion to decide whether the paper is in the endorsement business, but the manner and import of the decisions by these two owners bespeak several concerning developments, which have driven subscribers and journalists to abandon these newspapers with good reason since the respective announcements:

• Both Patrick Soon-Shiong and Jeff Bezos say that this is a policy shift done with the interests of the papers and journalistic responsibility in mind. Yet if, indeed, this policy was something each wanted to pursue for high-minded journalistic purpose, why was this change not discussed previously? Why didn’t they take this issue up last year, outside of the heat of an election and without skewing opinion in the current election by their action? Why did they pick two weeks before an election to change long-standing policies of their respective papers?

• Jeff Bezos maintains that endorsements generally are a mistake because it gives the appearance of bias to the news reporting. Can one explain why this concern apparently extends only to presidential endorsements? The Post has, after all, endorsed multiple candidates for a variety of offices in several jurisdictions in this very election cycle. Does his high-minded integrity only extend to the “top of the ticket” and only after meeting with Mr. Trump a week ago?

• The press is under fire from Mr. Trump, who by many accounts is leading in the election (at least the polling). In a supreme act of cowardice, worried no doubt that they will be singled-out for retribution from this angry man who promises vengeance, they backed away. Coincidence?

• The discussion of whether to issue endorsements came as a surprise to the news and editorial staffs of both papers. There was no meaningful period to discuss and consider the question…just the arbitrary decision by the owner. What extraordinary hubris for these owners to take these actions without meaningful consultation. What hubris to believe their journalistic instincts should take precedence over decades of dedication to journalistic integrity represented by the staffs of these newspapers. If they owned a pharmaceutical company, would they decide what drugs to pursue, without discussing the decision with the scientists?

• In both cases, the editorial staff had written endorsements of Ms. Harris. This is after careful consideration of the facts and the world views of the two candidates. These endorsements were expected. Soon-Shiong and Bezos have acted in a way that reversed the status quo and obviously carries a message of lack of support for the candidate expected to receive the endorsements. The decision belied indifference to the election, the effect their actions would have, and the normalization of Trump’s behaviors and statements about the media this represents.

• Then, there is the general fear that has settled into many corners of our society. Mr. Trump has made no secret of his desire to seek retribution from people who defy him or don’t support him. These two ultra-wealthy individuals no doubt fear for their profits or—worse—for their liberty at the hands of Mr. Trump. Their various business interests rely in large measure on government grants. Money clearly trumps ethics or moral responsibility. This fear is real and extends to a large number of people who fear Trump’s retribution. Even those who have challenged Mr. Trump fear their safety, their liberty, and their reputations (and that of their families) resulting from their opposition to Mr. Trump. We are witnessing the suppression of thought by a single man and a movement.

There is another issue here that is only indirectly tied to the decisions of these two owners. And that is with the responsibility we place on the super-successful and the super-wealthy. We are in an era of plutocrats, and these plutocrats make the plutocrats of old seem like amateurs. Gone are the days of the Kennedys, the Rockefellers, the Guggenheims, the Morgans, the Carnegies. Certainly, each of these dynastic super-wealthy families were involved in political causes and encouraged favorable legislation, but they all seemed to understand the limits of their wealth (and, of course, some acceded to the demands of Teddy Roosevelt and other turn-of-the-last-century progressives). Some of their scions became public servants. Others became huge philanthropists (in their own lifetimes—not some pledge of future largesse after they died). None tried (at least not successfully) to control politics through money in the way that the wealthy are able to do in this age of PACs, legions of lobbyists and the corrupting influence of money fueled by campaign finance reform and Citizens United.

CONTROL OF THE MEDIA AND THE PLUTOCRACY

Few of the plutocrats of yesteryear attempted to control the media and the delivery of information to their fellow Americans to the extent of this new breed. Oh, sure, there was William Randolph Hearst and the “yellow journalism” of the time. And we can lay a good deal of responsibility for our current divisive nation at the foot of Rupert Murdoch, whose Fox News was founded precisely to further a political agenda—not journalism, qua journalism. And much as what these two owners have done is destructive, even that pales by comparison to the machinations of Elon Musk. Those of us who saw Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (now X) as a terrible investment were so wrong as to his true motivation. Musk cared little about the profitability of that enterprise…the investment was in the platform, in order to manipulate it for personal benefit—both economic and political. The man is as dumb as a fox. Control the media and you control the message.

The plutocratic class are the beneficiaries of government subsidies, favorable tax laws with loopholes galore, and an expanding wealth gap. They continue to strive for more and more. And among the “more” is a sense that they should be in control of so much more than their business enterprises—largely (primarily) due to their wealth and the perceived wisdom they and some others believe to be apparent due to their vast wealth. I think they truly believe that they are smarter, and more worthy of exerting influence, or effecting their will, than ordinary citizens, or even groups of ordinary citizens. Their wealth, more even than the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age, has become a tool of politics, public opinion, and reshaping our nation.

A plutocracy (a government of the wealthy) is bad enough. But in its current incarnation, it comes with the American version of oligarchs, able to wield great power in the halls of government and through the media and public relations. News is controlled less and less by the few “old line” outlets, like The Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times, or the major networks. Increasingly, it is delivered by “influencers” (the self-appointed opinion leaders unburdened by journalistic education, experience, or ethics) and the major platforms like Meta and TikTok—who in-turn provide the platforms for these influencers. The social media giants control what we read and how often it is “pushed” into our hands. Meanwhile, they are protected by barriers to entry, massive numbers of lobbyists, politicians beholden to them for financial support, and laws that hold them harmless from accountability for what they publish.

When you start to look carefully, what you can see is a relatively few people controlling the media, political speech (both on-line and through no-holds-barred political spending), and a fast-track of favorable laws, regulations, and tax codes, toward even more wealth. I worry.

WHAT DOES TRUMP BELIEVE?

If one can boil Mr. Trump’s policies, they are few, ill-conceived, and largely reactive to perceived injustices and facts not in evidence. I’d list them primarily as (a) retribution for his “persecution,” (b) giving “voice” to the disempowered (with precious few policies for improving their lives), (c) declaring war against our agencies of justice, intelligence, and law enforcement, (d) going after undocumented immigrants (without regard for the moral, practical, and inflation-inducing problems associated with that policy), (e) tariffs on all of our enemies (without regard for the inflationary, retaliatory, and supply-disruption factors that would ensue), and (f) an isolationism that does not bode well for Ukraine, NATO and allies throughout the world. We seriously are contemplating turning the reins over to a petulant child, whose policies are motivated by anger and not by thoughtfulness. Just ask Mark Milley.

Have a great day,

Glenn