Article content

The Washington Post – which marked the first Trump administration by adding the motto: “Democracy dies in darkness” to its letterhead – had prepared an editorial endorsing Kamala Harris. Its owner, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, killed it, saying the paper would not support any candidate, now or ever again.

White-hot rage ensued. The staff resigned. Some 200,000 readers canceled their subscriptions. Writers who write about writers looked at what Post writers weren’t writing.

Article content

The outrage was like Amazon had removed free shipping, except it affected far fewer people. Bezos published his own op-ed to explain himself title“The hard truth: Americans don’t trust the media. »

He argued that too many readers believed the media was biased and that editorials tended to confirm that view, while having no impact on voters. So it’s best to abandon them altogether.

Bezos has denied killing the Post’s support for Harris because he wanted favors for his businesses from a future Trump administration.

“As far as the appearance of conflict goes, I am not an ideal owner of The Post,” Bezos wrote. “Every day, somewhere, some (leaders) of the philanthropic corporations and businesses I own or invest in meet with government officials,” he wrote. “The Post Office is a ‘complexifier’ for me. That’s true, but it turns out I’m also a complicator for The Post.

“You can view my wealth and business interests as a bulwark against intimidation, or you can view them as a web of conflicting interests. »

This is the point Donald Trump has been making for nine years; his personal wealth protects him from pressure from major donors. If he had been dependent on the Republican donor class, they would have cut him off and kicked him out long ago. Many progressives who hate him would have preferred that he be less independent and that big money had greater influence.

Article content

Article content

The Democratic donor class demonstrated this power this summer with brutal efficiency, ousting a sitting president and installing Harris to replace him, despite never receiving a single vote in a primary election.

The same writers who lament that deep-money Bezos kept them from supporting Harris would never have had Harris to support if wealthy Democrats hadn’t vetoed the choice of Democratic primary voters. So a lot of money is ambiguous.

Bezos is keeping the money-losing Post afloat. Its wealth supports a historic title and ensures journalism of a certain quality. Without Bezos, the Post would be even more overwhelmed by celebrity gossip than it already is. The daily mail is the world’s number one news site – and seller of monetized anger podcasts and YouTube.

Is Bezos and his wealth good or bad for journalism? Democracies need information, especially reporting rather than commentary. If the market does not provide it adequately, who will? Philanthropists are one answer. Generous ones. THE Job lost $77 million last year.

The government is another option. This is partly Canada’s response, with federal government subsidies paid to media companies, including Postmedia. Many voices have denounced this situation, fearing that it means government control – or at least, subsidized journalists backing out of their stunts, for fear of losing government money.

Article content

There is more logic to this than evidence – the National Post suddenly become supportive of Trudeau? Stephen Harper wrote checks for the CBC for nine years. Did this influence their reporting?

Someone has to pay for the news. Readers only paid part of it. Local newspapers held a near-monopoly in reaching readers, sucking up huge advertising dollars from every supermarket, car dealership and movie theater in town, with big editions landing on front porches daily.

The imagined promise of the digital world was that large numbers of readers paying small sums would compensate for the disappearance of big advertisers. This has only been feasible for a very small number of important titles – not even THE Washington Post.

A relatively small number of journalists, running small media outlets, produce high-quality commentary that finds a paying audience. But there is little reporting – which is expensive – and the information generated is rare compared to what was previously produced by metropolitan newsrooms.

It has been thirty-six years since Noam Chomsky published Manufacturing Consent. The left then opposed the “corporate media” that propped up a system of government that, in turn, protected and promoted the interests of big money. Today, the term “corporate media” is a term used more by the right, for the same reasons.

Article content

The media business model has radically changed; the digital age does not seek to manufacture consent, but quite the opposite, by dividing readers and viewers into ever-smaller segments of shared outrage.

Journalists don’t like being subsidized by the government. They don’t like having a billionaire owner who can call the shots, even if he rarely does. But the preferred payers, who advertise chicken on sale or the latest romantic comedy, no longer pay.

Has quality journalism become like the arts, supported by a combination of subscribers, public subsidies and philanthropy? Has the news become like hockey stadiums and international sporting events, where public money is spent under the guise of contributing to an ill-defined but deeply felt public good?

The anger against Bezos is a protest against a philanthropic media model. But in many places where there is no do-gooder like Bezos, the voices protesting have long since disappeared.

National Post

Article content