Is darkness enshrouding our democracy’s free press?

Is darkness enshrouding our democracy’s free press?

Commentary By Pete Haug | FāVS News

Last week two major newspapers announced they would not endorse a presidential candidate. The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post announcements came within three days of each other. 

The Times is the largest newspaper in the Western United States and the sixth largest in the country. The Post is the third largest newspaper in the nation. To underscore the importance of a free press, the Post, in 2017, adopted its slogan: “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” 

This newspaper broke the Watergate scandal, the Pentagon Papers and many more significant “scoops,” often earning Pulitzer Prizes.

Suddenly this influential newspaper-of-record has withdrawn from endorsing a political candidate. Is our democracy becoming enshrouded in darkness? 

One journalist’s take

On Oct. 25, the Post stopped its editorial board from drafting a presidential endorsement, announcing there would be none this year; this, despite multiple decades of presidential endorsements. A few days earlier, the LA Times interrupted and killed its editorial board’s endorsement. Mariael Garza, editorials editor, resigned, followed by others, “including a Pulitzer prize-winning editorial writer,” according to Margaret Sullivan, columnist at The Guardian.

Sullivan joined The Guardian in 2023 as media politics, and culture columnist. She was also media columnist with The Washington Post for six years, preceded by four years at The New York Times as public editor. I’ve admired Sullivan’s journalistic experience and clear thinking for years.

‘An appalling display of cowardice‘

“Shockingly,” Sullivan writes, “the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post have decided to sit this one out,” despite contrasts between presidential candidates. Each organization is owned by a billionaire. “There’s no other way to see this other than as an appalling display of cowardice and a dereliction of their public duty.”

This deeply disturbs me. Although journalism is changing, with electronic opinions generated on social media by artificial intelligence, many thinking readers still seek carefully wrought opinions. Such opinions, based on confirmable facts, navigate the nuances required for thoughtful decisions by readers. Such decisions are best based around opinions written by thinkers like Sullivan and unnumbered other dedicated journalists.

A ‘shameful smackdown’ and ‘disturbing spinelessness‘

Historically, Sullivan concludes, “it’s a shameful smackdown of both papers’ reporting and opinion-writing staffs who have done important work exposing [political]  dangers for many years.” She decries the apparent fear of “wrath and retribution,” should one candidate win.

Sullivan quotes a former Post editor who called the paper’s decision “disturbing spinelessness at an institution famed for courage.” After resigning from the LA Times, former editorials editor Mariel Garza told the Columbia Journalism Review she resigned “because I want to make it clear that I am not OK with us being silent … In dangerous times, honest people need to stand up. This is how I’m standing up.”

Sullivan reported multiple resignations at both papers, observing, “They do so at considerable personal cost, since there are so few similar positions in today’s financially troubled media industry.” The dean of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism said the failures to endorse constitute “an abdication.”

Axios observed that these failures to endorse added “to a growing number of papers that are choosing to back down from political endorsements across the country.” Noting that the Post’s editorial board “had already drafted and approved an endorsement,” Axios said the decision not to publish “was made by The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos.”

The big picture

Here’s the big picture, Axios concludes: “With trust in mass media at an all-time low, more publishers are choosing to avoid the potential blowback of endorsements.” 

To an old newspaperman like me, this cowardly approach abnegates any responsibility to readers and the public. Granted, editorials are opinions, not news, but a good editorial is based on facts interpreted through filters of personal biases. Self-respecting editorial writers examine their own motives carefully when crafting their opinions.

The integrity of truthfulness

The Baha’i teachings exhort human integrity and honesty. Baha’u’llah wrote, “Guard ye…the integrity of the station which ye have attained…. He, verily, enjoineth on you what is right and conducive to the exaltation of man’s station.” 

Man’s responsibilities are clear. Foremost among them is honesty, as ‘Abdu’l-Baha wrote: “…truthfulness, is the foundation of all the virtues of the human world, and without it prosperity and salvation are unattainable to any soul in all the worlds of God.”

Immediately following, he added, “Whensoever this holy attribute becometh securely established in one’s being, the acquisition of all heavenly virtues will be realized.”

And with truthfulness comes “trustworthiness, a quality which ranketh among the greatest of all divine bestowals.” 

The good old days

Of course, we could always return to the days following our country’s founding, “when violence against journalists ran rampant.” Publishers shamelessly touted their personal preferences, little concerned with facts. They printed lengthy anonymous screeds with no accountability. Of course, occasionally they were horsewhipped down Main Street as rioters burned their presses.

Might we again be headed there?

The views expressed in this opinion column are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of FāVS News. FāVS News values diverse perspectives and thoughtful analysis on matters of faith and spirituality.