Strange thing to see in the Washington Post of all places. It's not a ridiculous argument, although the diplomatic dishonesty being engaged to smooth the peace deal in Ukraine is astonishing to watch.
UPDATE: The Post is back to its usual self today. Just a passing fever.
Lead opinion: Donald Trump's rapidly spreading authoritarianism is the real threat to personal liberties and free markets. (Technically satisfies Bezos' order that Post opinion backs personal liberties and free markets.)
Editorial Board: Do Canada and Mexico deserve Trump tariffs? (Answer: No.)
Second op-ed: 'Tech bro Maoists' are torching the country that made them rich. (Graphic of Elon with a chainsaw).
Latest columns: 5/7 explicitly anti-Trump, 2 neutral.
I'd say that looks like open revolt against the boss.
12 comments:
Recently Bezos came out and said the WaPo would change its editorial page to promote individual liberty and the free market. Maybe this is part of that change?
If so, they’re really easing into it. The Editorial Board has a full throated rejection of Trump today, and the rest of the opinion pieces aren’t friendly.
Well, he didn't say anything about supporting Trump. I also suspect he'll have difficulty enforcing this unless he's willing to fire anyone who doesn't comply.
What specific diplomatic dishonesty do you see? The WaPo article is behind a paywall for me.
Is it? I thought I shared a link that would allow anyone to read it.
I mean of course the pretense that Russian actions don’t amount to aggression, to include public statements and the vote at the UN. It’s obvious that there wasn’t any Ukrainian incursion into Russia, which had already seized the Crimea. Not having an aggressor smooths the peace process, but it’s typical of diplomats to sacrifice plain honesty in that cause.
Blessed are the peacemakers, I guess. So I’ve heard.
Maybe this is an educational problem. I've found a number of people simply don't understand what personal liberties or the free market really are. They are shocked that the First Amendment protects hateful speech, for example, and only associate the free market with Marxist interpretations of capitalism. They think the president actually running the executive branch is a constitutional crisis. Maybe Bezos just needs to offer some seminars to explain these things. Mr Bezos, if you're reading, I would be happy to teach these things at my normal rates.
However, it's probably easier and may be cheaper just to fire them all and hire people with real educations instead of what most universities seem to offer these days. If you're worried about the transition, do it backwards: Secretly hire and train a replacement team, then fire the current group.
Yes, good point.
Heh. I'll write for the Washington Post if they can't find anyone else.
It's so interesting to me that reporters believe they don't have to do what their bosses tell them to do. When I was managing, I encountered an employee like that. I fired him. I've worked for SuperMegaCorp and when it was taken over by OtherSuperMegaCorp and annoying rules were laid down, we all complained but we did what we were told to.
I think reporters don't consider themselves employees. It's very odd. And I agree that it will probably require firing a whole slew of them to change that mindset.
I think you're right, Elise. I think they were taught in journalism school that journalism is more than just a profession, but a semi-sacred duty and a kind of independent wing of governance: that their duty, then, is to the People and to the Common Good, rather than to some money-grubbing employer.
And that duty is to speak the truth, not what moneyed interests want said but what they really believe after study, inquiry, and reflection. To hold the powerful to account, to tell the truth to the People so they can vote or advise accordingly, to be the proverbial Fourth Estate or Fourth Branch of government. To fail in that duty is to fail a deeply moral duty, whereas to reject a boss who is trying to push you to say what he wants you to say is a fine and ethical resistance of corruption.
This might all be to the good except that, of course, these are the very same people who covered for Joe Biden's unfitness for office; for the bureaucracy seizing control of the executive for four years; all the while advancing every lie that they were asked by the government to press upon the People. If they really were the people they believe themselves to be, we might all love them and support them in doing that duty.
Instead, well, trust in the media has never been lower. They can't seem to see that it's this very failure that is behind that; and they are instead acting as if their moral duty compels them now to resist market pressures as well as political defeat resulting from that failure.
Regarding paywall and the WaPo, you can access the article via web archive. "Archive today website" written in a search engine should bring it up. I am using the URL from the Web Archive. Trump just dealt Russia a devastating blow
Trump just un-dealt it, too, at least for a while.
But as I reflect on the article, it makes sense that the neocons would love this approach. It ensures that somebody's buying Boeing/Lockheed/General Dynamics war products for a long time to come.
their duty, then, is to the People and to the Common Good, rather than to some money-grubbing employer.
I think you're right and the extent to which they've failed at that is part of what makes their attitude so annoying and ridiculous. But what really sticks in my craw is that reporters think this way about themselves and at the same time believe someone should/must/is obligated to pay their salaries. They want to see themselves as fearless heroes but think they have a right to a paycheck, vacation time, a health plan, and a nice 401(k); and to deny them that right is a violation of freedom of the press.
Post a Comment