Is the era of newspaper endorsements coming to an end? James Brown delves into this question, reflecting on recent decisions by major newspapers like the Washington Post and LA Times to refrain from endorsing political candidates. He expresses a sense of relief at this shift, viewing it as an opportunity for newspapers to focus more on unbiased reporting rather than political agendas. Brown discusses the diminishing impact of endorsements and questions the relevance they hold for the average reader, suggesting that the true value of journalism lies in delivering impartial news. He challenges listeners to consider whether newspaper endorsements have ever truly influenced their voting decisions and invites them to share their thoughts on the issue.

The recent decisions by major newspapers like the Washington Post and the LA Times to forgo endorsements in political elections signal a notable shift in the landscape of journalism. James Brown dives into this topic, examining the implications of such a move for both the credibility of the press and the democratic process. He articulates a sense of relief that the tradition of newspaper endorsements may be waning, despite acknowledging the backlash from some subscribers who felt betrayed by the publications' choices. Brown argues that the relevance of newspaper endorsements has significantly diminished over time, as the majority of the public often views them as inconsequential to their voting decisions. He posits that the focus should shift toward enhancing the quality and integrity of journalistic reporting, rather than perpetuating a practice that may not serve the interests of the readership.

Throughout the discussion, Brown expresses concern over the role of media ownership and the influence exerted by billionaires on the editorial direction of newspapers. He critiques the perception of wealthy individuals as benevolent figures rescuing struggling media outlets, suggesting that this dynamic can lead to a blurring of lines between opinion and news reporting. The episode highlights how the erosion of credibility in journalism stems from this very confusion, ultimately harming public trust. By referencing the backlash from approximately 200,000 subscribers who unsubscribed from the Washington Post, Brown emphasizes the growing disconnect between traditional media practices and the expectations of a modern audience.

Brown concludes by inviting listeners to reflect on their own beliefs regarding the necessity of newspaper endorsements and their impact on democratic engagement. He poses thought-provoking questions about the last time an endorsement actually swayed a vote and challenges his audience to consider the implications of relying on media to dictate their political choices. This episode serves not only as a critique of the current state of political endorsements but also as a call to action for both media consumers and producers to engage in a more informed and independent approach to news consumption.

Takeaways:

• James Brown discusses the recent decision of major newspapers to not endorse political candidates like Kamala Harris.
• He expresses relief over the shift away from newspaper endorsements, hoping it indicates a larger trend.
• Brown critiques the influence of wealthy individuals in media and their impact on journalism's credibility.
• He argues that the distinction between opinion and news reporting has become blurred over time.
• The podcast raises questions about the relevance of newspaper endorsements in today's political climate.
• Brown challenges listeners to reflect on whether they really rely on endorsements to make voting decisions.

Companies mentioned in this episode:

• Washington Post
• LA Times
• NPR
• Jeff Bezos

Is this the end of newspaper endorsements?

This is commentary from James Brown.

I don't like how it happened, but I'm glad it's stopping.

What am I talking about?

Major newspapers endorsing political candidates.

Recently, two of the largest newspapers in America, the Washington Post and LA Times, decided not to endorse Kamala Harris.

Their owners stepped in.

The Post claims it's a return to being truly independent.

I don't believe that, but hey, I don't own the paper.

We'll see.

NPR reports that 200,000 or so subscribers unsubscribed in protest.

But I can't help but feel a bit relieved about it all in hope that this isn't a one off.

I hate the notion of benevolent billionaires swooping in to save failing newspapers.

They're treated like they're not just uber successful humans with incentives like the rest of us.

But strangely enough, this happening might be the best thing that happens from it all.

Let's be honest.

We, and by that I mean most people, don't always know or care about the difference between opinion pages in the rest of the paper.

That's an academic discussion that gets thrown around by media geeks like me and those who are in or aspire to be a certain class of society.

And the force that these opinion pages once had has been blunted after decades of misuse.

And let's face it, the wall between the editorial boards and the rest of the newsroom is paper thin.

The bias in one often seeps into the other.

That confusion hurts journalism's credibility, and it has for a very long time.

Besides, my local paper has endorsed candidates for decades, and did anyone really care?

Well, they did, back when we cared about the paper itself.

That's why I think we should focus on strengthening the other 364 days or so of content.

I think it's time for newspapers to focus on being unbiased about their reporting rather than pushing political agendas.

Of course, not everybody agrees with me.

Two to 200,000 or so people who unsubscribe from the Washington Post.

Cool.

By all means, leave.

It's fine.

You're not required to pay Jeff Bezos.

In fact, he doesn't need your money or anyone else's money, and I doubt it'll hurt him at all.

Maybe he will notice.

But if you're this mad about the Post not telling you that you should vote for Kamala Harris, you should slow down, turn off MSNBC, and ask yourself, did you really need them to tell you who to vote for?

I think you know the answer to that.

And if your answer is yes, we don't need to worry about democracy dying in darkness because it's already dead.

Here's my question for the rest of you.

Do you think newspapers should endorse political candidates or should they stick to straight news?

And when was the last time that a newspaper endorsement changed your vote?

Am I totally wrong here?

Let me know in the comments and support my work@jamesbrowntv.substack.com on that note, I'm James Brown and as always, be well.