The Thing Is ... WaPo & LATimes

So. Here's the thing. Whether or not you agree that a newspaper should publicly endorse a candidate is not the thing. Whether or not the owner of a newspaper should control who their paper endorses is absolutely the thing.

Historically, there is a "wall" between the revenue-producing part of a newspaper and the editorial part. Why? So that the news can be reported without bias. When someone buys a newspaper and leaves the name alone, the supposition is that the paper will continue to do its job with the same rigor and integrity as always.

When an owner's family decides that they can't get behind a candidate because of their personal feelings on a position that candidate has taken, it's their right to speak out. However, the newspaper they own isn't their own personal newsletter or podcast; it's an entity that is pursuing and protecting the principles of a free press. The thing is that the paper is not there to express their personal opinions.

When an owner decides he doesn't like the fact that his paper is about to endorse someone running against the candidate he supports, that's not the thing. The thing is that the paper is an independent entity, operating independently of the opinions of the owner; if the owner wants to use a newspaper as a personal megaphone, then he should change the name or start a new one.

What the owners of the LA Times and Washington Post have done is reprehensible. They have taken institutions - two of the few remaining institutions - that report on facts and do the hard work of providing the information our democracy needs to run and silenced them in keeping with their own personal positions.

Shame on them!