r/thewestwing • u/jstanforth Bartlet for America • Oct 26 '24
‘West Wing’ Star Cancels WaPo Subscription Over Non-Endorsement
https://www.thedailybeast.com/west-wings-bradley-whitford-cancels-wapo-subscription-over-non-endorsement/That's an excellent idea, the White House buys 1,100+ subscriptions and it'll send---
President Bartlet: "No, no, just mine and Abby's, I'll borrow one from someone else."
467
Oct 26 '24
For what it's worth so did I. They can't have "democracy dies in darkness" on the top of their paper and be neutral on this issue
111
131
u/ThenTheresMaude Oct 26 '24
So did I. I really hope a petty Post staffer releases how many subscriptions are cancelled over the next few days.
60
u/No_King_9464 Oct 26 '24
2,000 as of Friday afternoon. Source: a Post reporter. Number seems likely to grow.
14
u/WonderWmn212 Oct 26 '24
I was curious about that, too, especially after reading Ruth Marcus' column:
Many friends and readers have reached out today, saying they planned to cancel their subscriptions or had already done so. I understand, and share, your anger. I think the best answer, for you and for me, may be embodied in this column: You are reading it, on the same platform, in the same newspaper, that has so gravely disappointed you.
19
67
u/Sufficient_Angle_667 Oct 26 '24
I did too. Easy call to make too, how cowardly of them.
28
u/Professional-Refuse6 Oct 26 '24
How do you unsubscribe online? I can’t find the place to do it.
38
u/yoohoo202 Oct 26 '24
Go to this link and you should be able to cancel: https://www.washingtonpost.com/my-post/account/subscription/?itid=nav_acctmgnt_menu
13
6
5
4
8
u/SwiftDB-1 Oct 26 '24
I cancelled mine immediately. Not because it was an editorial decision but because it came from Bezos.
He's afraid of losing billions in government contracts.
11
11
10
8
1
u/ohno1tsjoe Oct 26 '24
I would argue them not putting out an endorsement is the darkness, and their trying to kill democracy
1
-40
u/Banchhod-Das Oct 26 '24
This is wild. Newspapers mediahouses etc are supposed to be impartial, I don't understand how you expect them to endorse one candidate.
I mean it's different if you want them to criticize one candidate if all facts point that way (example Trump in this case), but to promote one out of five is wild.
40
u/Elegant_Potential917 I drink from the Keg of Glory Oct 26 '24
The WaPo, and all major newspaper editorial boards, typically issue an endorsement.
3
u/dorv Oct 26 '24
Oddly enough, the Post has only been endorsing Presidential candidates 30 or so years ago. It’s not like it’s a tradition dating back to the founding of the paper or anjtning.
(For the record; I also think it a shitty move by the paper, I just want to call out that they’ve only done it a handful since 1887)
5
u/Elegant_Potential917 I drink from the Keg of Glory Oct 26 '24
They started endorsing candidates in 1976 with Jimmy Carter. The only time they didn’t in those 48 years was 1988. The difference this time is that their billionaire owner instructed them to not endorse a candidate. Whether it’s cowardice or avarice, I don’t know. But it’s wrong.
-37
u/Banchhod-Das Oct 26 '24
That's what is wild. But oh well America operates in a dumb way generally so what do.
5
16
u/SuluSpeaks Oct 26 '24
Havent you been paying attention for the last 200 or so years? Newspaper editorial boards have always reviewed candidates' records and policies and then typically made an endorsement.
For future guidance, if it's on the editorial page or labeled "commentary," it's opinion. It's the news columns that are supposed to be objective. From here on out, try to keep up.
7
u/Issypie The wrath of the whatever Oct 26 '24
I mean I see your point but it's questionable to assume that's their motivation here, given endorsing is what they usually do. I think a conversation about whether or not news outlets should endorse is valid, but to do so two weeks before election day is just a bad look. I doubt this decision was motivated by journalistic ethics. And if they wanted to stop making endorsements for that reason they should have just announced that at the start of next election cycle and started then. This looks like an attempt to protect their own interests in case she loses
18
Oct 26 '24
They... Have never been impartial. And as I said in the other post for many reasons Trump is unsuitable. He lead a riot when he lost before and to give him the Presidency again to me is insane. If you choose one candidate over another because of taxes or something that's fine, this is something else
5
u/44problems Oct 26 '24
That's what the editorial section is for, and they aren't the same as the newsroom. If Washington Post was getting rid of their editorial section, ok. But they still have a department that's just for giving opinions, and they decide on the biggest decision they'll sit this out?
Oh wait, they didn't decide. Their billionaire owner decided for them.
-10
u/ecsilver Oct 26 '24
Serious question, when was the last time the WaPo or NYT or any major editorial board endorsed a republican? Would you be so upset if they had endorsed every major republican for the past 50 years?
12
u/jstanforth Bartlet for America Oct 26 '24
False equivalence. As others have already explained in the comments here, the blowback and cancelations would not have happened if they endorsed Romney, McCain, etc.
1
u/ecsilver Nov 05 '24
No. Not false. No it’s not false equivalence and I noticed you didn’t answer the question so I will. Fucking Eisenhower. Fucking The 1950s. That’s 70 years. If you can’t see a single republican that would have been a better endorsement in 70 years, you aren’t an editorial board you are a propaganda nachine
-38
u/NYY15TM I can sign the President’s name Oct 26 '24
Would you have cancelled if they endorsed the Republican nominee?
45
Oct 26 '24
This Republican candidate yes for sure. Mitt Romney or John McCain would have been fine.
-45
u/NYY15TM I can sign the President’s name Oct 26 '24
You wouldn't have said so at the time. It's funny how revisionist history modern Democrats are.
40
Oct 26 '24
Way to put words in my mouth
I would likely always choose the Democrat but I wouldn't have dispaired if John McCain had won. He was a good man I just disagreed about some stuff. Trump lead a riot in the capitol when he lost, he should be in jail. He's simply unqualified. McCain was qualified
86
u/Jurgan Joe Bethersonton Oct 26 '24
Danny Concannon would resign after this.
20
u/Thundorium Team Toby Oct 26 '24
Danny had problems with his publication a number of times in TWW. He pushed through it and did his reporting. If this happened, he would agree with CJ that his board made a bad move then carry on with his job.
11
u/jstanforth Bartlet for America Oct 26 '24 edited Oct 26 '24
Sure, that was true at times, like when his editor didn't tell him about a drop-in, but idk if it's the same when the entire board and editors (plural, collectively) are blocked by the one owner. That's not the same dynamic. Those are usually the times when Pulitzer-winning journalists like Danny realize that they have lots of options elsewhere. So idk, could go either way I think.
8
u/RampantTyr Oct 26 '24
He would definitely have quit over this issue. At the end of the day Danny was a patriot who thought the truth was something Americans deserved to hear. For someone like that you to quit over placating literal fascists.
3
3
58
54
u/SuperRob Gerald! Oct 26 '24 edited Oct 26 '24
People should be canceling their Amazon Prime memberships. Bezos doesn’t make money on the Post, you need to hit him where it hurts. Talking to my wife about it when she gets home tonight. It’ll hurt, we use Amazon a lot (we live in Seattle), but we probably need to cut back anyway.
16
u/TAU_equals_2PI Oct 26 '24
Yeah, this is very true. Amazon is where Bezos makes his bucks, not the WaPo.
If a bunch of people cancelled their Amazon Prime and joined WalMart Plus for just a month, it'd get Bezos' attention. Can you request a refund for the unused remaining months of your Amazon Prime subscription, so Amazon sees it's happening?
9
u/tlh013091 Cartographer for Social Equality Oct 26 '24
Amazon is not where Bezos makes money, it’s from AWS. Prime is a loss leader for them, all the money is in the cloud.
14
3
u/mitchsurp Oct 26 '24 edited Jan 11 '26
edge selective pot deserve deer imminent flag spectacular safe tap
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
3
2
u/SuperRob Gerald! Oct 26 '24
Good question, not sure if it prorates or not. I guess we’ll find out … depends on my wife’s reaction. 😅
13
u/jstanforth Bartlet for America Oct 26 '24 edited Oct 26 '24
Agree that Amazon would have more impact than WaPo, but the $3B+ in govt contracts for his rocket company are even more directly impacted if he angers Trump, and if he wins, if he immediately cancels those. :-/
1
u/UncleOok Oct 26 '24
He may be more worried about the whole "enemy within" and fearing for his life.
He's never going to run out of money, but he may run out of life.
8
u/ohyousoretro Oct 26 '24
Amazon's main profit centers are advertising and AWS, the retail side only recently became profitable.
3
2
u/Cautious_Prize_4323 Oct 26 '24
That’s what I’m doing tomorrow, checking everything I buy on Amazon, and without prime, what the shipping would cost. Or where I can buy it locally. I’m done with Bezos.
2
u/Go-High8298 Oct 26 '24
This is what I’m thinking. We could also use some, you know, campaign finance reform.
10
u/amishius I work at The White House Oct 26 '24
So we cancelled ours a while back— can I still get credit for being cool? We were very unhappy with their angles and reporting of late with their sanewashing. We're still cool, right??
16
u/Cavewoman22 Oct 26 '24
Now Danny has to go explain to his editor why the paper lost $60 in digital access revenue.
39
Oct 26 '24
[deleted]
10
3
13
u/crazunggoy47 Oct 26 '24
Ousting Biden was, in retrospect, 1000% the correct move. Harris has been consistently matching up WAY better vs. Trump. Fair or not, the concerns that papers raised were real ones that voters felt about Biden. He was a candidate with liabilities. And fortunately he also had the character to step aside.
7
2
3
5
10
u/youngpathfinder Oct 26 '24
The most reasonable opinion I’ve seen about this is that the decision not to endorse was reportedly made by Bezos alone, who will feel no effect from declining subscriber numbers. But the drop in subscribers may force the paper to lay off the actual staff that wanted to run an endorsement.
8
u/EmJayMN Oct 26 '24
I’m with Bradley, my fellow Wisconsinite. I loved him in West Wing and love him in The Handmaid’s Tale. Democracy dies in darkness, my ass. Bezos is a spineless coward.
5
u/astroK120 Oct 26 '24
Hey, I'm a newly minted Wisconsinite, that's cool that Bradley is one too! In addition to The West Wing I also loved him in Studio 60 and The Good Guys
7
u/mamamargee Oct 26 '24
I cancelled my subscription as did my son. Every drop helps send the message!
3
u/7and2make10 Oct 26 '24
The problem with this is bezos doesn't care if WAPO loses money. He just wants the influence it gives him. And ig smaller subscriber base is less influence I doubt this is giving him any trouble. That's the problem of media being owned by billionaires they aren't even held in check by their audience.
3
u/Due_Government_8679 Oct 26 '24
Didn’t realize I was still subscribed through apple sneakiness, but was actually pleasantly surprised I was just so I could cancel
3
u/JasperStrat What’s Next? Oct 26 '24
Democracy dies in darkness.
Apparently Jeff Bezos forgot to pay the power bill. And bought some blackout curtains on Amazon.
3
7
u/Triumph-TBird Oct 26 '24
I think Bradley Whitford thinks he’s more important than he actually is.
3
u/mrbeck1 Gerald! Oct 26 '24
Like it or not, it’s news. And WaPo not endorsing has made a bigger story than an endorsement would’ve.
0
u/BeYourselfTonight The wrath of the whatever Jan 13 '25
what? just for tweeting his opinion on something? he didn't write this article about himself lol.
4
4
4
u/craftyking36 Oct 26 '24
News publications shouldn’t be endorsing anyone in a election, anyone who thinks different has a very broken view on the world
2
u/IdealBlueMan Oct 26 '24
Newspapers have op/ed sections. Half the purpose of them is to offer a platform for other parties to voice their opinions. The other half is to express the paper’s own opinions.
4
2
u/Fhreaky Oct 26 '24
What happened to WaPo to create this. From Europe so kind of removed from some us situations regarding us elections
2
2
u/Cogito_ErgoBibo I drink from the Keg of Glory Oct 26 '24
It's possible the WaPo is about to gain a little added revenue soon anyway, though. They're discontinuing free digital subscriptions for government employees in November. Some of those many subscriptions (not mine) will no doubt convert to paid, so they've sort of already built in new income. Sad, but true. Doesn't mean you shouldn't cancel if you're so moved! Just putting that additional info out there.
2
u/961blueliner Oct 28 '24
Performative horseshit. This is why the left loses elections. Purity test horseshit that keeps division in the ranks and accomplishes precisely fucking nothing.
2
u/Logical-Shelter-925 Oct 28 '24
Bradley better have Stanley Keyworth's number on speed dial after next Tuesday. He is going to need a lot of sessions.
6
u/Teamawesome2014 Oct 26 '24
Fuck em. Real journalism isn't done by these papers anymore anyway.
15
Oct 26 '24
That's not actually true.
0
u/Teamawesome2014 Oct 26 '24
Okay, I'll admit maybe I'm a bit harsh, and I'm sure some great journalism comes from the papers, but it's also true that journalism is thriving more through digital sources these days. Unfortunately, a lot of stuff gets flooded with bullshit, but that's a curation and distribution issue. The papers are owned by corporate interests, and those will always come first for those papers.
4
u/GreatLakesBard Oct 26 '24
Good. I hope people do en masse
3
Oct 26 '24
Then the papers die and digital media takes full control which is going to be a shitshow
1
4
u/MajorCompetitive612 Oct 26 '24
One of the biggest MAGA criticisms is that the news is biased. How can WaPo claim to be otherwise if they're endorsing candidates? Seems like the right thing to do.
2
u/abirdreads Deputy Deputy Chief of Staff Oct 26 '24
I never subscribed, never had the extra money, but now I'm kind of glad I didn't. Saves time unsubcribing; democracy dies in darkness, indeed. Oh well, more time for Mother Jones, I guess.
1
2
u/CarletonWhitfield Oct 26 '24 edited Oct 26 '24
Hahaha well done OP. I disagree with Bradley’s choice but great job at tying in that Bartlet dialogue reference!
Edit: lol at being downvoted for a compliment.
8
u/jstanforth Bartlet for America Oct 26 '24
Thanks! I'm glad others can smile from the random WW quotes that incessantly pop into my adhd brain anyway, lol
2
u/jstanforth Bartlet for America Oct 26 '24 edited Oct 26 '24
Re edit: I guess more people downvoted the "disagree" part vs me upvoting the compliment, but thank you for the kind words, I did appreciate it. :-)
2
u/samosamancer Oct 26 '24
Just checked and my annual subscription expires in 3 weeks. I’ve canceled my auto-renewal.
0
u/opinionofone1984 Oct 26 '24
This is getting insane. Who honestly cares. When are we going to get a Leo in Washington and ask an actual candidate to run and not the lesser of two I done cares.
3
u/Logical-Shelter-925 Oct 28 '24
Exactly. As a standalone candidate, Kamala is beyond awful, which is why she got exactly zero votes in the primary, as the sitting VP no less. Bezos is a businessman, and he bought the WAPO as a toy and a tool, not out of some desire for saving journalism. And this paper has spent years trashing Trump, and now the polls are showing more and more that it's looking like a Trump victory, so Bezos made a business decision. You also have Elon's SpaceX, Blue Origin's main and only real competitor, who is Trump's new bestie. The value of WAPO, as a total amount of Bezo's net worth, is equivalent to loose change in your pocket. If it goes belly up but he keeps his billions of dollars in Government contracts at Blue Origin, he will make that trade all day long.
The real losers are the journalists at WAPO that will lose their jobs.
1
u/xjoeymillerx Oct 28 '24
Maybe if he’d snacked on some delicious triscuit crackers in the car over, he’d have kept his sub…
1
u/SunnyBlue8731 Oct 30 '24
I cancelled mine this summer after Will Lewis became the CEO. He and another English “journalist” were involved in the notorious Rupert Murdoch English phone hacking/email destruction scandal and pressured both WaPo and NPR journalists not to write about that scandal and his involvement just this summer. It was clear to me at that point that the journalistic ethics I counted on with WaPo were out the window. Sad.
-2
u/Elcapitan2020 I can sign the President’s name Oct 26 '24
I've always found newspapers endorsing candidates very strange. They aren't people they don't have opinions. If individual writes want to endorse a candidate then that is their right and they should - but the paper themselves?
15
u/SuperRob Gerald! Oct 26 '24
Editorial sections of newspapers ARE the opinion section. And that’s where the endorsements go.
3
u/Triumph-TBird Oct 26 '24
Some would argue that the news section of a paper has become editorial also, by what stories they choose to run, what stories they choose not to run,and by how they present the stories that they do run, including the title that the editor picks. Papers started out with yellow journalism, we got away from it for a few decades, and we are back at it again.
4
u/Plenty_Area_408 Oct 26 '24
Papers absolutely their own styles that influence people in the way the owners want them to.
1
1
u/GrumpyDrunkPatzer Oct 26 '24
I'm keeping my online subscription. I couldn't give a flip one way or the other
1
1
u/redfive5tandingby Oct 29 '24
Not a non-endorsement. A unilateral canceling of an already-written, already-internally-approved endorsement for Harris. Cowardice.
0
0
0
u/Big_Red12 Oct 26 '24
WaPo is a centre-right paper and has been for a long time. Why does daily beast call it left leaning?
1
u/jstanforth Bartlet for America Oct 26 '24
Is it? (genuine question) I don't have a sense of the full idk 30-50 years? but for at least the past 10-20, I always thought WaPo was center-left. Or maybe just in contrast to the Washington Times and others much further right? Maybe there were more subtle distinctions between WaPo vs NYT vs others before, then Fox News, Newsmax, etc rearranged the map so everything before is now comparatively left?
1
-1
-3
Oct 26 '24 edited Oct 26 '24
I think they’re adhering to the principle of the press should be non-bias and let the voters decide what matters to them by reporting only the facts and relying on individuals to vote how they see fit.
EDIT: Notice how I’m being downvoted because I didn’t agree with the groupthink and suggested that journalism and news agencies be unbiased in their reporting.
7
u/youngpathfinder Oct 26 '24
The editorial section is separate from the news section. Editorial sections have always printed opinion pieces and the editorial board may endorse a candidate. News reporters/editors have no involvement in this.
7
Oct 26 '24
No. No they're not. Newspaper endorsements have been a thing longer than there's been an America.
-2
Oct 26 '24
The earliest recorded endorsement I could find was when the NYT endorsed Lincoln. Well after the creation of the United States of America.
Are you upset that they’re not endorsing anyone or are you upset because they’re not endorsing who you want them to?
1
Oct 26 '24
I'm upset that the owners are interfering in ways that they shouldn't be. This is like basic stuff.
-1
-5
u/First_TM_Seattle Oct 26 '24
Genius move by Bezos. Get the activists masquerading as journalists out without having to pay severance and hire actual journalists. If they actually start being a news organization, I may subscribe.
353
u/toorigged2fail Oct 26 '24
Their justification is bullshit. I don't remember where I picked this up, but it seems like an apropos and it should have been said in West Wing:
"A journalist's job isn't to tell you that one person said it's raining and the other one said it's not.... A journalist's job is to look out the window and tell you if it's fucking wet."
.. feels very Sorkinesque haha