The Washington Post and LA Times just stepped into a bigger political mess than the one they tried to avoid

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

When is something a newspaper doesn't publish a news story?

In this case, that's right now. And it's actually two stories: The Washington Post won't be endorsing a presidential candidate this year. The move comes days after the Los Angeles Times made the same decision.

The obvious parallel between the two calls is that both newspapers are owned by very wealthy men. Patrick Soon-Shiong, who owns the Los Angeles Times, is worth a reported $6 billion; Jeff Bezos, who owns the Post, is worth a reported $194 billion, making him the third-richest person in the world.

And there are other similarities between the two non-decisions: The rationale behind the moves, for instance, is being communicated quite clumsily.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/the-washington-post-and-la-times-just-stepped-into-a-bigger-political-mess-than-the-one-they-tried-to-avoid/ar-AA1sWr74

[marybourg]

1. Are there any newspapers that aren't owned by wealthy people?

[Hekate]

3. I doubt most people can afford to. Customers believe they should be able to read for free online...

That, btw, is an attitude widespread on DU.

My newspapers used to be fat with advertising — which has gone online. Ads paid a lot more than subscriptions.

Local papers have diminished in their perceived importance to local communities. Reporters are fewer. If no one reports what the City Council is up to, is it really happening?

It costs a lot of money to run a business, and newspapers are a business. The building and equipment all cost a lot. If it is a national newspaper, there will be travel costs inside the country and overseas. The owner/editor needs to support his family. Reporters expect to be able to support their families.

The big outfits have gobbled up the small.

Someone this morning opined that WaPo reporters should all quit and start a co-op newspaper. Very funny. See above re expenses.

[marybourg]

4. All true. Pointless to rail against newspapers owned by wealthy people.

But since the internet, non- wealthy people can have something of a voice also. Witness — “influencers”!

[chouchou]

2. My take is: "We don't want to upset either side of the political enviornment"

So you're spineless cowards.

My other take is: "Each Candidate has pluses and minuses"

So, you're both 2 God-damn idiots.

[Skittles]

5. nope

they are either afraid of Trump or complicit with him

has nothing to do with Democrats and everything to do with a threat to democracy

[chouchou]

6. With respect to Mr. Joel: You may be right... I may be crazy.

[travelingthrulife]

7. Maybe a coop distribution system? I don't necessarily mind paying for subscription

But I don't want to have to manage dozens of subscriptions to read the sources I enjoy. Nor do I want to pay a full subscription when I only read an article or two now and again. Subscriptions have become too time consuming and annoying with all the passwording, etc.
Why not have many national/international/local news sources available for subscription under a single umbrella. WE get to choose to which papers we subscribe. I would even subscribe to local news then.

Like cable programming except we choose and they don't rip us off.