In an earlier post, I suggested that Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong were hedging their bets by prohibiting the editorial staffs at their newspapers from endorsing a candidate for president. Other critics have also weighed in.
Jeff Bezos defends his integrity and his determination to increase the credibility of the Washington Post. Of newspapers, he writes, "We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased."
Bezos believes that declining to endorse a presidential candidate in 2024 is a step in ensuring that the Post is regarded as "a credible, trusted, independent voice." He pledges to "exercise new muscles," with both unspecified new inventions and returns to the past. Uh-huh.
Let's grant this: there is ample evidence that there is much mistrust of the media.
But mostly, overwhelmingly, it is Republican partisans who mistrust mainstream news sources. Whatever "new muscles" Bezos decides to exercise to get FNC-addicted MAGA true-believers to believe whatever the Washington Post has to say, I'll believe it when I see it. We have every reason to doubt that the failure to endorse Kamala Harris in 2024 will boost MAGA acceptance of WaPo as a reliable source. More likely that it generates the smug feeling that the left-leaning Post has capitulated to Donald Trump.
Meanwhile, Patrick Soon-Shiong's daughter, Nika Soon-Shiong, told the New York Times, “Our family made the joint decision not to endorse a Presidential candidate. This was the first and only time I have been involved in the process. As a citizen of a country openly financing genocide, and as a family that experienced South African Apartheid, the endorsement was an opportunity to repudiate justifications for the widespread targeting of journalists and ongoing war on children.”
Mr. Soon-Shiong replied to the Times:
“Nika speaks in her own personal capacity regarding her opinion, as every community member has the right to do,” the owner said, according to a spokeswoman. “She does not have any role at The L.A. Times, nor does she participate in any decision or discussion with the editorial board, as has been made clear many times.”
Well, yeah. She speaks for herself. She has no role at the LA Times. She participated in no discussions with the editorial board. But did the family have a discussion? Did they reach a consensus? Was the war in Gaza a consideration in killing an endorsement of Harris? Mr. Soon-Shiong doesn't deny any aspect of his daughter's explanation of how the decision to scotch a Harris endorsement came about.
It sure looks like he's not being candid, much less transparent. I'll also note that, according to the Los Angeles Times, "Times owner Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong said that his decision not to offer readers a recommendation would be less divisive in a tumultuous election year." I guess we can conclude, though the publisher says, “I have no regrets whatsoever. In fact, I think it was exactly the right decision,” that his political instincts are abysmal. A Harris endorsement would have created hardly a ripple of attention, while his decision created a firestorm of controversy, with the Trump campaign chortling about it and thousands of LA Times readers cancelling their subscriptions. What a miscalculation.
In his op-ed, Bezos acknowledges "the appearance of conflict" with his many financial ventures. That would be hard to deny, though he dismisses the view that they are "a web of conflicting interests," because he is a man of principle. I'm sure Soon-Shiong also regards himself as a man of principle. And who's to say they're not?
But the country's billionaires have an awful lot to lose. Another massive tax cut skewed to the richest among us means a lot more to them than to most Americans. That's the carrot. The stick: from Silicon Valley to Wall Street, there are lots of billionaires whose fortunes could be severely impacted by a vindictive president who has boasted of his willingness to go after his enemies.
While a billionaire might have principles and, so, might find grounds for withholding support to Donald Trump -- billionaires are generally pragmatic men (mostly men) where their money is concerned. We can expect them to have a measure of common sense, to be protective of their wealth, and to weigh a number of diverse considerations, beyond disdain for a petty tyrant, in their decision-making.
The more billions, the more likely that disdain for a petty tyrant (or any other factor) is outweighed by financial prudence.