[jmcclell]

It makes sense in so much as "it's a risk to our business to endorse Harris because of the risk of falling afoul of Trump's vindictive nature should he win."

From a fiduciary standpoint, I agree with that assessment. From the standpoint of a citizen, I find the implication alarming.

I do believe that this is the reasoning behind the decision, but it is certainly speculation on my part.

[archagon]

A newspaper that succumbs to fear of reprisal fails completely in its principal duty and becomes little more than a propaganda rag.

[throwaway48476]

It was always a propaganda outlet. Only now more people see it.

[wbl]

If you own a paper money isn't the point. Just like in a hospital or a law firm or even a bank. You do the right thing because society trusts you and making money comes from that. Do the wrong thing, and your business will vanish.

[jmcclell]

The problem extends beyond WaPo, though. He is connected with other companies that rely on government contracts or are otherwise subject to current and/or future government regulation, e.g., Amazon, Blue Origin, etc. WaPo may be the one he's willing to risk in this instance?

[sleepybrett]

You are forgetting that the ftc is looking at amazon under biden, one would hope that harris will keep kahn in the post (because she's kicking asses that have been needed to be kicked for 30+ years).

I think he's in a bad place. If he endorses trump he's endorsing a potential fascist dictator. If he endorses harris he's contributing to amazon's anti-trust peril.

[dralley]

A billionaire personally intervening in the endorsement of a major newspaper on the basis of profit motive seems like the sort of thing that would contribute to anti-trust peril.

[sleepybrett]

I think abstain is his only real play here, both endorsements are peril.

[Animats]

A statement along those lines should appear in the next 10-Q filing, under business risks.

[bitwize]

This is why we need to repeal and replace the First Amendment with an amendment that guarantees freedom of expression within the bounds of civilized discourse (e.g., open Nazism=crime) and severely punishes government officials who use their power to stifle such expression. The First Amendment, as written, protects speech that oughtn't be protected, and fails to protect speech that ought to be protected, hence the current situation with the Washington Post being cowed into withdrawing their endorsement by the threat of a vindictive Trump.

Countries with no First Amendment, where hate speech is in fact criminalized, routinely score higher on international free-speech indices than the USA because in the USA the government, especially the Republican Party, has the means and the will to intimidate the press into silence or capitulation.

[bigstrat2003]

We need to do no such thing. All speech, even speech which is vile, must be equally protected under the law or else the protections are meaningless. In your preferred policy regime, it's entirely too easy for the people in charge of government to declare "this is outside the bounds of civilized discourse" about perfectly legitimate speech which they don't like. History has shown us, time and time and time again, that this will happen once you give people the power to censor. It may take 5 years or 100, but it is inevitable. I'm not willing to open that door, and if the price is that I have to deal with some jerks who are Nazis, I call that a bargain.

[jmcclell]

I generally align with your viewpoint here. I do think what we need are better ways to regulate the way free speech flows in a constantly online world. That's hand wavy and non-specific, I know, but one example might be some regulation around algorithmic outcomes re: echo chambers. Though, I did recently come across a paper that strongly suggested such regulation was futile. In any case, for the betterment of society, we need some creative solution to combat the fact that technology has given us the means for propaganda to spread effortlessly and without consequence for those behind the grift.