Capital Press Club Podcast
Capital Press Club Podcast
CPC Legacy Podcast #22 - Media Bias and Election Endorsements
What happens when a major newspaper decides to break with tradition and stay silent on endorsing a candidate? Join us on the Capital Press Club Legacy Podcast as we tackle this bold move by the Washington Post, marking a significant shift in the media landscape. Together with media enthusiast Derek Canney, we explore the ripple effects of this decision—from subscriber backlash to questions about the influence of ownership. Our episode offers a tribute to Andrew Young, Atlanta's trailblazing first Black mayor, before diving into the complexities of media endorsements and their impact on public perception and democracy.
We weigh the delicate balance between journalistic neutrality and the power to sway public opinion, examining the role of ownership, such as Jeff Bezos's involvement, in potentially shaping editorial choices. This episode goes beyond the Washington Post, drawing parallels to other influential figures like Elon Musk and the evolving landscape of misinformation on platforms like X. As we discuss media accountability and transparency, we emphasize the essential role that news organizations play in fostering informed electoral participation, especially during politically charged times. Tune in for a thought-provoking conversation on media bias and the intricate dance of influence in political elections.
Welcome back to the Capital Press Club Legacy Podcast. I'm your host, dr Colin Campbell. You are with us for episode 22. We have a lot lined up today, but first, as we always do, we start out with this day in Black history. We have Andrew Young, who was elected to the government in Atlanta as mayor of Atlanta, where he served eight years and, of course, he had a legacy behind him where, of course, he was the first black mayor of Atlanta, georgia, and we, you know, I've met him actually, unfortunately, he was in a wheelchair when I met him Very nice guy. He's also a member of Alpha Phi, alpha Fraternity Incorporated, so of course, there are a lot of people who followed him and he set a legacy for the city of Atlanta for years to come. So we wanted to make note of that and of course, we have joining us today my man in front of the camera behind the camera Derek Canney. Front of the camera behind the camera Derek Canney. Derek, what's up?
Speaker 2:man, how are you? Hey, it's a great Sunday night. Commanders miracle win over Chicago. I am unabashedly a Commanders fan and it's the only bias that outs out on this platform.
Speaker 1:All right, thanks, yeah. Surprise win for the Commanders tonight, I guess, right, yep, yeah. So we start out with the first thing, I guess the first item. You know, of course, we always talk about the media and the media about the media, and so this is the Washington Post not endorsing a candidate for the first time in more than 30 years, and I wanted to get what your sense of that was and just how you felt about that, because a lot of people are canceling their subscriptions.
Speaker 1:I have a colleague of mine who I've worked with for a number of years I'm not going to mention his name, but that was one of the things he talked about on social media he follows. He's been a subscriber to Washington Post for a number of years. He follows the media every day and once he found out that the Washington Post was not going to endorse a candidate, he decided to cancel his subscription. It seems kind of extreme, but the Washington Post is reporting numerous people canceling their subscriptions out of frustration and out of protest that they're not endorsing a candidate in what many feel, according to my colleague, is a very crucial time in American politics and the history and the present state of our country. So I wanted to get your feeling on that, dk, and see how you felt. Is that a bit extreme to cancel a subscription because the Washington Post is not endorsing a candidate? Apparently, this was the decision of Jeff Bezos, the owner of Washington Post and, as we know, amazon, one of the biggest, if not the biggest, online retailer in the world.
Speaker 2:I think we've talked a few times about concerns we have for when media or news decisions are made, or editorial decisions are made, from the various high, at the very high levels of the of the organization, where people that have no um, journalistic training or any quote-unquote not necessarily integrity, but may have alternative motives in terms of their decision making, and when they circumvent the um, the decision making that was already laid in place by the organization, the decision-making that was already laid in place by the organization. That troubles me a bit and it takes away from the integrity of the media organization, as we have this thing where we're wrestling back and forth with fake news and we're telling people go to the Washington Post because the Washington Post has integrity or go to the LA Times because they report with integrity, and this doesn't seem to be based off of any journalistic principles. Now, that said, this decision doesn't seem to be based off of any type of journalistic principles or by an editorial board which, I believe, usually makes those decisions. It seems to have been made by the owner of the organization which, in that case, was probably could have been made by the owner of the organization which, in that case, was probably could have been influenced by some type of other entities. Who knows what that is Right. At the same time, you know, was it ever fair for a media, a major media organization, whose job it is to be a trusted resource for news and information and providing people with the information they need to make decisions and form decisions, to take a stance on something like the presidential race?
Speaker 2:So I'm a little torn Now it being presented in this election. The timing I'm very skeptical of the timing. I'm very skeptical that it came from the top and not from the editorial board. I would have accepted it better if it was made earlier in the year, before the elections became competitive or the candidates were set in stone for Republicans and Democrats, and if it was decided by the editorial board of the Washington Post. If it was like a decision made by the staff of the Washington Post, I'd feel better about it. But the fact that it's coming from the top echelon it makes it seem like perhaps the Washington Post is not immune to bias. You know.
Speaker 1:Well, I mean the fact that they were going to endorse and that they have endorsed shows that there's a place anyway. Right, that's part of what an editorial is.
Speaker 2:What.
Speaker 1:I find interesting is that they already were about to endorse Kamala Harris, apparently when Bezos pulled the plug on that endorsement. Now again, we always say this, but I feel like we have to say it again on that endorsement.
Speaker 1:Now again. We always say this, but I feel like we have to say it again Capital Press is not a we are not a nonpartisan organization, so we're not going for either candidate either way as an organization. But the facts are there that the reports have indicated that the Washington Post was set to endorse Kamala Harris when Jeff Bezos decided that that was not in the best interests of the newspaper or the Washington Post, so what he did there was more of a strategic move. Now we do know that the former president, donald Trump, has been combative with media throughout his. He was combative with the media throughout his presidency. On the campaign trail he has talked about being taking revenge or being seeking retribution for people he feels aggrieved by, and this seems like a strategic move by Bezos in case Trump wins the presidency, that maybe the Washington Post wouldn't be targeted or Amazon wouldn't be targeted and, of course, if it is as part of a retribution by a sitting president of the United States, that could lose the company a lot of money. That could cause lots of problems for the company. We also know that Trump had also been combative with Bezos in the past and had had questions about Amazon in the past. So I think through this strategy he feels that he could circumvent any possible obstacles if Trump is elected in just a couple of weeks.
Speaker 1:We have less than a month until Election Day, so I think this was again kind of a business strategy rather than a media editorial strategy.
Speaker 1:But, of course, because it involves media and it involves a longstanding newspaper, one that I've researched, actually for my dissertation this is a record of note for many people, and so, for there not to be an endorsement for many people, it turned them off and they're canceling subscriptions and, like you alluded to just a couple minutes ago, dk LA Times also has decided not to endorse a candidate, and so you have these two major newspapers, the preeminent one being the Washington Post, not showing any deference either way as to who they think would be best suited to lead the country.
Speaker 1:I think that turned a lot of people off because of how divisive things are right now, because of how close the race is, because of what many view as a very crucial time in the country where democracy could be at stake, where so many things could be at stake, and, I guess, the time where they're expecting their paper, one that they have so much faith in, for its editorial and for its coverage to really make a decision and make it clear to its audience who they best felt was better suited to lead the country over the next four years or so.
Speaker 2:Now.
Speaker 2:So I have a question for you. Things that make this very suspicious for me, or questionable, is the fact that not only is the Washington Post making this stance, but also one of the nation's other major newspapers, along with the New York Times and the Wall Street Journals and the LA Times, making that same decision at the same time as the Washington Post, which is kind of suspicious in itself, but then also at a time where you happen to have a very close race, or a race where it seems that the Democratic candidate is winning, so to speak. What do you think about the timing? Does the timing have anything to do with this?
Speaker 2:If the LA Times and the Washington Post decided in January that they were not endorsing a candidate this year, would it have as much impact as it does when they announced it now, which is like a week away from the election? Right, and then does, does it? Does it, does it make a difference that the Washington Post used to in the 1970s, before the 1970s, didn't take a stance on these things? What do you think about those, those items, colin?
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think that the timing of this highlights just how contentious this race is and how people are really looking for some type of guidance or some type of insight.
Speaker 1:Because of how close the race is and how people are on edge, how stressful or nerve-wracking this race has been. I think a lot of people wanted some clarity. A lot of people wanted to see their paper take a bolder stance as to a situation that is very serious, that could chart the country on a different course depending on who wins the election. And the timing, of course just a couple weeks out shows just how dire this situation is. I think if the newspapers made a decision at the beginning of the year or last year, I don't think that as many people would be upset. I think that the fact that the race is so close that they're looking at a nail-biter or, as they say, a horse race a very close horse race that they're looking for any kind of insight, any kind of like I said, bold stance, but the fact that the newspaper is not doing that, it shows that maybe they are taking a side without actually taking a side, and I think that's what a lot of people are taking umbrage to.
Speaker 1:Yeah they're not being. Maybe they don't think that with a Harris win they're kind of hedging their bets where if they say that Trump wins, they feel like they could be at risk of Harris wins or loses. They don't feel like she's going to be taking revenge or seeking retribution, so it's not. It doesn't really matter to them whether or not Harris wins or not. I think they really look at Trump as a signal to not endure any more.
Speaker 2:What do you think if you were a signal to not endure failure? What do you think if you were a member of the election, the leadership, the editorial leadership for either the Washington Post and the LA Times, and it's been your job historically to help make decisions in these matters. And this year, out of all the years, someone comes in after you've made a decision and decision and says, no, we're doing something else. How does that? How does that impact you as a professional? Because you are just, you are an employee of the organization and how do you reckon, how do you recommend someone reacting? A lot of people are resigning, some people are publishing their discontent. What, what do you? What do you see as the reaction to the professionals involved? But then, one of the reactions that you've mentioned, I think it's worth saying again, by John Q America. You know how do you feel about, do you feel betrayed?
Speaker 1:yeah, I think that if I was a audience member, if I was getting the Washington Post, I I was getting the Washington Post and I was looking to the Washington Post. Of course, I read different magazines and newspapers and online content, so to me it's not as consequential for the Washington Post to make a decision. But if I was working at the Washington Post as a leadership role within an editorial position, I would probably be pretty irritated, considering that we had been endorsing candidates the past several years. People are looking for that guidance, for that leadership, for those insights and all of a sudden, someone above me, who's not really a news person but more of a business person obviously, is making the decision, not for the editorial. Now, if I was a business person which I'm, not a more in media I could almost see why he's making this decision because it could affect business. And if your bottom line, if you're only looking at the bottom line, and if that is what rules for decision-making, rather than morality, rather than being a change maker or something like that, or a tastemaker or whatever you want to call it, someone who bucks convention and wants to just create something controversial and change, I guess I would make that decision not to endorse a candidate, because that way I appear more neutral. Of course, the fallout could be that it could actually backfire. We don't know exactly how many people have decided to eschew their subscriptions, but that we'll be able to tell in a few days, I guess, with reports of how many people are canceling their subscriptions.
Speaker 1:Now, if I was on the editorial staff, I guess I would let my voice be known that I don't agree with the decision. I don't know how. You know how intense I would be, because it is a job we all are dealing with a shaky economy. So I don't know if I'd risk my livelihood over this, but it depends. I guess it would depend on how long I've been there.
Speaker 1:My relationship with Bezos, you know it really all depends, and as you, on, I guess it would depend on how long I've been there. My relationship with Bezos, you know it really all depends. And, as you know, I think there's a racial element here too. When you are a black man, black woman, in certain positions it's hard to get to those positions. Sometimes we've had to work harder to get into certain positions than our white colleagues do. So it's even more crucial that we're more mindful over the decisions that we make. So when we are speaking out against the owner of the company, we have to remember that the consequences may be even more severe than if our white compatriots did the same thing.
Speaker 2:So I'd have to.
Speaker 1:You know it's hard for me to really predict how I would react in that situation. I know that I would rather. I know for sure, I would rather have been a person to promote endorsing a candidate. That I know for sure. But how would I have handled it? That's hard for me to say, you know, unless I really knew how again, my relationship with Bezos, how long I've been in the position, how protected I would be in that position, if I have the support of my staff in speaking out against the Washington Post not endorsing a candidate. You know, could I make an editorial, my own editorial, kind of not condemning but maybe criticizing the Washington Post or Bezos' decision not to endorse a candidate. If I could do that, maybe I would, instead of even saying who the candidate would be, but maybe just criticizing the fact that they're not endorsing a candidate. If I could do an editorial on that, maybe that would be an option that I would take and do an editorial on that.
Speaker 2:Maybe that would be an option that I would take. Yeah, and a sad thing. It's hard to admit this, but as we talked over the last few weeks about how important it is to have an objective source of information, which would be news organizations and have unbiased opinions or unbiased information presented to you from news organizations, it's hard to also say that and then support the notion that that same powerful, trusted entity should be able to recommend who you should vote for, after presenting you or presenting itself as an unbiased, objective source for information. But what was really telling about this is the timing. You're a week away from the election and you decide not to present an endorsement, which in some ways is inaction or detraction is actually inaction. And by not allowing two organizations that were going to show support for one candidate but then decided not to show support for any candidate might be a way of the organizations that kind of say or infer that they have support for the other candidate, which I don't know if they wanted to send that message, but that that's the message I'm getting. The message I'm getting is by not allowing my team, who I've trusted for the last 50 years, to do what they've done every year to endorse a candidate which happens to be a certain candidate of a certain characteristics or demographic features in a year. That's very controversial. Then am I saying that I'm supporting the other candidate?
Speaker 2:And back to what you said are we an organization that is subject to the influence of a potential president that might be, um, that might retaliate on an organization, um, that recommended against their presidency? You know, are you organization? Are you scared? Is the washington post scared? You know, um, is it all the time scared of one candidate or the other? Who knows which candidate you know?
Speaker 2:And that's that's the question I have. Is you can't? I don't know if news organizations can operate from a stance of fear? There's a lot of questions here. I don't have all the answers. I just think we should share the questions, because we certainly share a lot of the support for media organizations. That's never going to change. That's still the best source for factual and true and objective information.
Speaker 2:And the same way, we're presenting different sides to this today and sharing different ways that people may or may not be impacted. As employees or as decision makers, or even as owners of a media organization. Everyone has tough decisions to make, interesting things to deal with and gosh, this is a major, major story. I mean, early voting has started. You know, people are hitting to the booze tomorrow morning, you know, tuesday, wednesday, all the way through the 31st, and then November 5th is just a couple, like less than 10 days away. So the timing of this is the most damning part for me, but it's amazing. It's amazing to be here to witness all that was going on, and I'd love to see in four years if this legacy of no longer endorsing a candidate continues. Or was it for one election? And if it's only for one election, then that's very damning. I'd be very concerned for this country if that was the case.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and I think that's why we can tell this was more of a business decision than a media editorial decision. I think that when it comes to journalism, when it comes to making decisions, when it comes to trying to analyze a particular issue and make it more granular and palatable for public consumption, we want things to be out in the open. We want things to be more explicit. That's why, especially for writing for television, you want clear words. You don't want to use too big of a vocabulary or too many esoteric words where people can't understand it. You have to as you know, you've heard this aphorism before put it where the goats can get it. So if the Washington Post is making this coverage or has been producing this coverage over the past several years, people are looking for the paper to at least talk about why they think the paper itself, or members of the paper or the editorial staff, believes a certain candidate would be better than another candidate for the future of the country, Even though right now it looks like it was really Bezos who was afraid, or the board, the executive board at the Washington Post that is more concerned, rather than the journalists themselves. Like I said, the journalists were already about to publish something that would have endorsed Harris, but Bezos pulled the plug on that right. So I think that a lot of people are looking for temerity from their journalists so that they can have a better insight as to what they should be looking at, or at least providing some clarity on some things that they may have overlooked. That's why a lot of people look to newspapers, why they look to their media, and for the paper not to do this, I think that some of their subscribers think that they're not getting the bang for their buck. They're not getting what they were paying for as far as a subscription to the Washington Post is concerned, and that is for critical insight, for intellectual rigor and definitely for an editorial where they, as subscribers, could understand and better contextualize what is at stake in this race.
Speaker 1:Which candidate would suit their interests more? In fact, I remember what year was it? I want to say 2016. When there was a questionnaire and that's something that I looked for in the Washington Post when there was a huge, there was a primary. It was. They asked it came to voting or who I should be following, because I was able to see which candidates matched up with my beliefs the most, and I think that's what a lot of people are looking for in this fast food type of society, in this fast, very quick consumption media society. They're looking for whatever they're investing their money into to help provide that insight. Whether that's fair or not, that could be a different discussion, but the point is that the production being productive and what they are getting out of their media, I think a lot of people feel that they were underserved here and that's why they're canceling their subscriptions.
Speaker 2:Yeah, now one quick question from me to you. Yeah, Now one quick question from me to you. We've been scrut. We believe Elon Musk is making decisions, the owners of a media, organization making decisions based off their own personal or business preferences.
Speaker 1:I don't think it's similar in the way that Musk has definitely been very clear about who he's supporting. He hasn't been shy about this at all, about this at all, so much so that there are reports that he might be violating some type of ethics in providing a raffle to get people to vote for his candidate, who is the former president, right.
Speaker 1:So, I think that, yeah, there was a. If you read about it, there was something where Musk was saying that if you vote or you can join a raffle and you could win a million dollars to vote, or something like that. It's connected and now he's under investigation for possible impropriety or vote tampering or election tampering because he's throwing more money into the voting process. That in itself is troubling. That in itself that he has a platform which now has millions of followers and he's spreading all kinds of misinformation and disinformation on his platform that is going out being disseminated for the consumption of millions of his followers and people are basing their judgment on the misinformation and disinformation that he's sharing and there's very little accountability because he has opened up the platform for this type of just wild information dissemination without the checks and balances that Twitter once had, and, unless it's something that is derogatory towards him or biased against him, it seems like anything goes, and that's why I believe one of the preeminent country music stars right now I believe he's a country music star. His name is Jelly Roll. I don't know if you've ever heard of him, but he's pretty good right now. He's won some awards.
Speaker 1:He decided to cancel his subscription to X because he says it's become very derogatory, just defamatory, and he just doesn't like the content. I forgot the exact words he used, but it was pretty much like disgusting or egregious or, let's just say, very undesirable content that's now being put on X. I won't get into details about some of the things that fly up on my page. I don't know if it's my algorithm or how my algorithm got the way it got. I don't know but if you scroll through X enough, you will be hit with content that you might be shocked to see, and Twitter wasn't like that.
Speaker 1:I also have another personal friend who I know has logged off or canceled her membership with X earlier this year because of the same reason. I'm sure that there are a lot of people who are not alone my friend in Jelly World are not alone with people who have canceled their membership or their subscription to X because of the content that's being put on there and the politics that Musk seems determined to disrupt or to influence very heavily. We even saw him campaigning with Trump. So I think this is a bit different than what Bezos is doing, which is kind of removing himself in a not so subtle way. I would almost say that Musk here is showing more bravery and just embracing a candidate so wholeheartedly where you have Bezos, which seems to almost run away from any kind of conviction towards a particular candidate.
Speaker 2:So I don't know.
Speaker 1:I feel like there's almost like opposites here between Bezos and Musk, in a way.
Speaker 2:That was a tough one to a tough but fair comparison to differentiate the two, if anybody's thinking to lump Bezos in the same category other than being insanely rich with Musk. So there is a difference. There's a difference not only in the approach and the situation and the media organization, but also in the treatment of the owner in relationship with this media organization. So we have a few minutes left, do you want?
Speaker 1:to talk about more misinformation and disinformation involving a guy who called himself the black insurrectionist. I believe his name is Jason Palmer. Yeah, is that the fake news of the day?
Speaker 2:That's the fake news of the day.
Speaker 1:Fake news of the day.
Speaker 2:Yes.
Speaker 1:You got the honking horn there.
Speaker 2:Oh yeah.
Speaker 1:This is Jason Palmer, a guy named Jason Palmer, I believe, out of upstate New York, who called himself the black insurrectionist and was spreading all kinds of misinformation and disinformation, we could say, because he consciously took on this moniker as the Black insurrectionist and spread all kinds of misinformation online to throw people off, and then it was traced back to him. I believe he's under investigation now. He had thousands of followers where he would spread mistruths about the vice presidential candidate, tim Walz, and him being involved in some type of sexual allegations, which were not true, but he put that online Harris as well, and again under the veil of a moniker that involved Black identity, and we've seen this happen time and time again when it comes to various crimes.
Speaker 1:It could be anything from murder to carjackings, to robberies, people trying to pretend that they are Black, putting themselves, subsuming the identity of a Black American and saying that they're doing and engaging in all of these activities that are definitely not integrous, and so, fortunately, he was discovered, but of course, there's already damage out there. Like they say, a lie can spread around the world, go around the world several times before the truth catches up to it, and here you have a guy online who was very active on X stuff, like we were just talking about, spreading misinformation and disinformation under the guise of being a black American.
Speaker 2:All right. So for folks out there, if you do come across a post and you see that black insurrectionist was the source of it, you know that indeed is fake news, fake news. So be very, very wary of that and we'll do our best to help you guys realize. I think it's important these days to differentiate fake news not only by who's providing you with information, in this case, a phantom account created by someone that presented themselves as African American and shared a lot of mistruths via social media that a lot of people were believing, that had enough hints of possibility, or maybe some things people wanted to believe or were so fallacious that it led people to believe mistruths and misinformed the public in such a way that it may influence future decisions, and that's dangerous for the country, colin. Back to you, sir.
Speaker 1:Yeah, you know we'll end here. It is important to check all the sources that you can when trying to verify whether certain pieces of information are veridical in nature or not. Certain pieces of information are veridical in nature or not. With this one, you would have needed to check around. We do remember several years ago as well I believe it was 2016, if not a year or two earlier where we had another tagline, a website, blacktivism or blacktivistcom, which was actually a Russian. The URL was owned by Russians or the domain was bought by Russians to also spread misinformation under the guise of Black American identity.
Speaker 1:So when it comes to news like that, it's always best to check your sources, try to verify and cross-check information that you might be learning, especially for the first time, with other sources to see whether or not it is truthful. And this goes along the lines with media literacy, which we will be talking about in upcoming weeks, and we hope that you join us for those discussions. But for now, we're going to say goodbye for the Capital Press Club Legacy Podcast. Derek Kenning for joining us today, and we will see you next time for episode two.