We Can't Afford Billionaires

It feels like my brain is melting from the ongoing madness. Forgive me if this goes astray…

Since the dawn of agriculture, humanity has continually fostered two interconnected challenges: environmental degradation and concentrated wealth. The former has inflicted lasting harm on the ecosystems we depend on, while the latter is a growing obstacle to addressing our social and environmental crises.

That brings us through the past 10,000+ years to the current inflection point. I’d go into detail about the stakes of this election. but this cartoon shared by Max Berger cuts to the chase.

The stakes of the US election are clear: Would you like fascism or not fascism?

Important ballot measures abound, but if we pick the wrong president, any gains from the rest of our votes would likely be overwhelmed by the return to chaos. Despite the choice, the polls suggest a toss-up. Harris may hold a small lead, but it’s not enough to declare her the favorite—especially with the undemocratic Electoral College in the mix and four years of Trump’s supporters looking for ways to tip the election. If Harris wins, we should expect a barrage of legal challenges. Should those fail, well, we know what happened last time, and this time, Trump’s back is up against the wall.

With so much on the line, it’s crucial to have a media ecosystem that keeps us well-informed. While some outlets and individual writers have risen to the occasion, many major outlets have struggled throughout the campaign. Some unabashedly take sides and work to pull outcomes in desired directions, often leaving facts by the wayside. Others try to appear nonpartisan, which, in our twisted circumstances, leaves them also tilting the scales as they endlessly normalize threats and ‘sanewash’ incoherent ramblings.

Recently, two major papers have taken things a step further as the billionaire owners intervened with endorsements—first at the LA Times and then at the Washington Post. Meanwhile, other billionaires openly escalated their support for Trump,

The LA Times Endorsement Fiasco

The LA Times’ Editorial Board reportedly planned to endorse Kamala Harris for President, but the paper’s owner, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, stepped in to kill the endorsement and also scuttled the Board’s plan to run a series alongside their endorsement called The Case Against Trump. (Soon-Shiong previously intervened in 2020, blocking the paper’s plans to endorse Elizabeth Warren in the Dem primary.) In a Twitter post, Dr. Soon-Shiong shared that he had asked the Editorial Board to provide the pros and cons of each candidate, so that the readers “could decide who would be worthy of being President for the next four years.” (Emphasis mine, as in the following sentence.) Meanwhile, in an interview around the same time, he explained, “I think my fear is that if we chose either one that it would just add to the division,” before adding, “Look what’s happened to the Twitter (X) feed. It’s gone a little crazy when we just said ‘you decide.’” (This is where I turn my head to stare directly into the camera.)

The paper’s editorial editor, Mariel Garza—who had already drafted an endorsement—resigned in response to Soon-Shiong’s decision. As she put it, “I am resigning because I want to make it clear that I am not okay with us being silent. In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up.” Two other members of the paper’s editorial board followed Garza out the door and thousands of subscribers cancelled their subscriptions.

Further, over 180 LA Times staff members signed an open letter condemning the breach of trust from the decision’s handling. They called out the owner for publicly claiming the Editorial Board “chose to remain silent,” when the silence was due to his intervention. The open letter called for the following steps to help restore lost trust.

1. Thoroughly cover this story so that readers fully understand what transpired.

2. Provide readers with an explanation for not issuing an endorsement, along with clarity about the broader endorsement process. 

3. Correct the record to make clear that the Editorial Board wanted to write an endorsement and did not choose to remain silent.

Bezos Follows Suit at the Washington Post

Jeff Bezos, the billionaire founder of Amazon and owner of the Washington Post, also intervened in his paper’s endorsement. He made the “principled decision” to end endorsements, not out of fear of retribution, nor in response to a meeting between Trump and one of Bezos’ CEOs that morning, but rather due to the apparently sudden realization that, “What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias.” He claimed the move was intended to increase trust in the paper, and added, “I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it. That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.” (I’d turn my head to stare directly into the camera again, but I’m still there.)

It’s worth noting here that back in a 2019, Amazon claimed it lost a $10 billion contract to provide cloud computing services to the Pentagon for what they saw as “improper pressure” from then President Trump. They claimed he had done so in an attempt to harm Bezos, “his perceived political enemy.”

WaPo’s ‘TikTok Guy,' Dave Jorgenson, shared a different take on Bezos’ move in the video below.

Multiple members of WaPo’s Editorial Board stepped down, as over 250,000 subscribers voted with their wallets in response to Bezos’s “principled” move, and others are calling for people to cancel Amazon instead.

Columnist Robert Kagan resigned in protest, as he called out Trump’s meeting with one of Bezos’ CEOs. As Kagan put it, “Trump waited to make sure that Bezos did what he said he was going to do – and then met with the Blue Origin people. Which tells us that there was an actual deal made, meaning that Bezos communicated, or through his people, communicated directly with Trump, and they set up this quid pro quo.” (If I told you to ignore Kagan and instead believe Bezos when he said he did not know one of his top lieutenants was meeting with the former President a few weeks before election day in a knotted race—as well as everything that stands upon Bezos’ claim—it would be time for you to stare into the camera.)

Adam Serwer, a staff writer at The Atlantic is a journalist who I hold in high regard. He responded to Bezos’ explanation noting that it had “A lot of words, but ‘I did not interfere with the editorial independence of the paper to curry favor with Donald Trump’ isn’t in there.” Whether you think that was an just another unfortunate oversight or an intentional omission probably depend on whether you think Bezos is careless or cunning.

While I mock Bezos’ claim of having made a principled decision, it’s possible he just has terrible principles and is absolutely sticking to them. That said, I’m with Dan Rather on this. As he put it, “What Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos did was cowardly and unconscionable. Just 12 days before the election, he ordered the paper — his paper, one of the last stars of American journalism still alive and breathing — to cease presidential endorsements, just as it was about to publish an endorsement of Kamala Harris.”

Modern satirists tend to leave me short as they seem to prioritize cleverness, but I'll tip my cap to Alexandra Petri for using her space in WaPo to go right at Bezos. As she put it, “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!

For contrast to the billionaire capitulation, we can look to the Willamette Weekly, Portland’s alternative rag. They endorsed Harris with a single sentence: “On the whole, we’d rather this not be America’s last election.”

These events prompted Marcy Wheeler (emptywheel) to state that it’s “clear that the US has to capitalism-proof its democracy.” I wholeheartedly agree.

The Threat of Trump 2.0

The problem with the non-endorsements isn’t their effect on the election, but that they will help embolden an increasingly dangerous Trump, as they signal a willingness to obey. This dynamic reminded me of Timothy Snyder’s book, On Tyranny. I was going to write about the first chapter of it here, but Prof Snyder shared this video a few days ago, so you’re better off hearing it from the source.

The combined stress of running a presidential campaign, while fending off multiple indictments, and surviving assassination attempts seems to have left Trump increasingly addled. Pair this with the escalating rhetoric and the problematic people he’s surrounded by, and we might soon be excused for wishing we were instead back in his chaotic first term.

Last week, the NYT’s Editorial Board warned that while Trump’s threats may seem extreme, his record shows he often follows through on them. They looked at seven of his ongoing threats and came away with the same recommendation for all of them, “Believe him.” (Here’s a gift link to the article.)

Trump’s big event at Madison Square Garden turned controversial when a comedian called Puerto Rico an ‘island of garbage.’ This triggered a backlash from artists like Bad Bunny and Jennifer Lopez, who endorsed Harris in response.” Yesterday, a Trump surrogate was debating the comedian’s comments, when he told Mehdi Hasan, “Yeah, well, I hope your beeper doesn't go off.” This was an unveiled reference to the IDF’s recent attack on Hezbollah using explosives they embedded in the group’s pagers. I was happy to see CNN respond by banning the person from the network.

[EDIT: Right after posting this, I ran across a post from Mehdi Hasan where he responded to the incident and discusses it in the broader context of the moment.]

We’re in a moment where norms are being challenged and the preemptive acquiescence of those like Bezos and Soon-Shiong opens the door for more and worse. While the surrogate was banned, he might have gotten away with it if Hasan hadn’t called it out. All of us need to step up like Mehdi did, lest we want to help facilitate a slide into authoritarianism. As comedian Marc Maron noted, treating “shameless, self-proclaimed white supremacists and fascists… like they are just entertainers or even just politicians, all it does is humanize and normalize fascism.”

this climate, even small gestures of preemptive acquiescence by media figures like Bezos and Soon-Shiong enable dangerous rhetoric. We must remain vigilant to avoid sliding further into authoritarianism.”

Another recent rebuke came from an unexpected source as former General and Trump chief of staff, John Kelly, said Trump fit the definition of a fascist. He took a lot of heat for doing so, but he was followed by a letter from thirteen other former Trump White House officials, in which they applauded Kelly’s efforts to highlight the “danger of a second Trump term.” That group of “lifelong Republicans” added, “there are moments in history where it becomes necessary to put country over party. This is one of those moments.” (I keep hearing this sentiment from across the political spectrum, while the polls keep telling us it could go either way. I’m really hoping the polls are way off this time.)

In this precarious moment, as billionaire publishers acquiesce, the rest of us need to remain vigilant to push back against the threat of authoritarianism.

The Growing Alignment of Tech Billionaires with Trump

While members of his first administration warn us of the dangers of another Trump Presidency, Silicon Valley’s billionaires are increasingly drawn to his campaign. Elon Musk has been the most prominent, He’s been seen at events, jumping up and down behind Trump’s bulletproof glass, held campaign events of his own, and you've surely heard about his PAC’s lottery fiasco.

Tech journalist Mike Masnick recently wrote about how Musk has repeatedly fallen for misinformation, and that it’s nothing new for “greedy, disconnected billionaires” to use the media for their personal desires, but that it’s shocking to see how frequently he will directly promote baseless claims or outright falsehoods, never ever taking responsibility or admitting to having promoted bullshit.” Masnick then added the importance of calling out such falsehoods. The man has over 200 million followers on a platform where he has total control.

The Justice Department warned the PAC the lottery might be in violation of federal law that bans “incentives such as cash or prizes to induce voter registration.” Philadelphia’s DA followed their warning with a lawsuit attempting to stop the lottery. The suit claimed that the lottery risked irreparably harming “Philadelphians – and others in Pennsylvania” and tarnishing “the public's right to a free and fair election.” Reuters reached out for a comment on the suit and Musk’s PAC responded with a link to a Twitter post announcing the lottery’s latest winner. That seems to say a lot about Musk’s respect for free and fair elections and the rule of law more broadly. I would expect to be locked up within hours of unveiling such, but Elon blew off his court appearance as his lawyer filled to move the case to a federal court. This move was an obvious attempt to delay, so that the lottery could continue with election about to wrap up. As history prof Seth Cotlar notes, “Like Trump, he's playing chicken with the legal system because he thinks a) he's untouchable and b) if he is indicted he can turn it into a PR stunt that gets even more people to rally around him.” Today, the judge paused the case for consideration of Musk’s request. (This is where I stare cross-eyed into the camera.)

Other tech billionaires, like Marc Andreesen, have shown their support via major donations. They surely expect to curry favor via things like handouts, tax cuts, and beneficial regulatory changes, or other ‘favors.’ And Peter Thiel and his cabal are even more worrisome but I won’t go into it here, as I’m sure you’ve heard plenty about Project 2025.

Inequality’s Effects on Discourse

This is getting a bit long, but I want to quickly share a few more thoughts around inequality and our ability to be reliably informed. As the few continue to carve off an economic strata of their own, it behooves them to keep us less well informed. If we look at Musk’s takeover of Twitter, I don’t believe there was a master plan there. He just made an absurd offer and then couldn’t find his way out. But once he was stuck with it, he steadily changed Twitter from being a place where people went to keep a finger on the pulse, to one which, as historian Helene von Bismarck put it, “now resembles an aggressive wasteland filled with hate and rumour.“

Musk owns nearly 80% of the shares, and those were recently estimated to be worth less than half their value at the time he bought the company, so he’s lost billions on the deal. It hardly matters as his personal wealth was recently estimated to still be around $270 billion. He could choose to destroy several more ‘Twitters’ and still be a multibillionaire. The same goes for Bezos. Who cares if he ran off 10% of their digital subscribers? Take it out of petty cash or use it as an excuse to cut staff.

Let’s also reflect a bit more on the billionaire publishers. Their non-endorsement decisions drew a lot of attention, but prior to that, how often have you heard their names in relation to coverage? It’s happened, but not all that often. With that in mind, how often do you think they affect coverage in general? While these owners may not typically intervene directly, I suspect there are known taboos that journalists tend to avoid and that they also are careful about how they cover other topics. If that’s the case, how might it affect public perception?

All of this is occurring in an era of declining opportunities for writers. The chart below shows the cratering revenues for US newspapers over the past two decades. While journalists are playing musical chairs to sustain their careers, going against a billionaire owner beckons precarity.

Professor Jessica Calarco offers a striking example, noting that “Billionaires buy media companies not to make money but to peddle the myth of meritocracy.” It’s hard to argue with this claim when she calls out the fact that just 29% of the people in America think billionaires are bad for the country, including just 14% of Republicans. How much do you think Rupert Murdoch’s guidance of Fox News has influenced that latter figure?

The problems of mushrooming inequality and media consolidation are just two of the many complex, interrelated challenges we’re faced with. Staying reliably informed is fundamental to democracy. With the questionable motives of the owners at leading papers, I think it’s time to support outlets and individual writers who are committed to keeping us informed without other interests getting in the way. Bucky Fuller would tell us our media systems are no longer fit for purpose. Let’s “Build the new thing.”

Postscript

I finished drafting this late last night and by chance ran across post below, sharing a quote in an article from the 51st, a worker-led nonprofit news outlet founded earlier this year that provides reporting “rooted in (their) conviction that local journalism is meant to make people’s lives better.” The name of the post I happened upon is titled, D.C. Deserves Billionaire-Free Local News. Check it out. They may not be in your neighborhood, but it's certainly a model that's worth consideration.