The trouble with billionaires, especially media owners

 

 

The trouble with billionaires, especially media owners

Are reader boycotts and staff departures part of the answer?

Margaret Sullivan Dec 9

 

“Democracy can’t flourish in a context of grotesque concentration of wealth,” wrote Michael Tomasky in a 2019 opinion article in the New York Times.

As Tomasky (the editor of The New Republic) noted, this is not a radical or new notion. It goes back a long way, certainly to Thomas Jefferson.

But, in America, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few is becoming more grotesque all the time. Many of the richest people in our society are also owners of important news (or media) organizations. Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post from the Graham family in 2013; Patrick Soon-Shiong bought the Los Angeles Times in 2018; Elon Musk bought Twitter in 2022. All are billionaires — Musk and Bezos are two of the richest people in the world.

All of this is why some developments in the media sphere have me worried. To wit:

The billionaire owner of the Los Angeles Times — one of America’s great newspapers — is interfering with editorial independence. After yanking an endorsement of Kamala Harris before the presidential election, Soon-Shiong is now seeking to staff the editorial board with right-wing commenters like Scott Jennings (you may know him from his defenses of Trump and MAGA-world on CNN). Oliver Darcy, who writes the excellent media newsletter Status calls Soon-Shiong “MAGA-curious.” At least, I would say.

 

Soon-Shiong has told his editors that he wants to personally approve headlines on opinion articles (highly unusual and a terrible idea for an owner) and is developing a “bias meter,” driven by artificial intelligence, that will be placed on stories to — as Darcy put it — “warn readers that his own reporters are biased.” (Isn’t it the job of editors to consider that question, before publication?) The owner is “using the newspaper as an apparent vehicle to appeal to Donald Trump,” including by posting on social media his praise of Trump’s Cabinet choices.

As a result, many talented LA Times journalists are heading for the door.

Then there’s Bezos, who was lauded for saving the Washington Post from financial ruin — and for years was hands-off the editorial content, leaving that to the journalists. Now, Bezos is making dubious decisions. And he seems to be far too chummy with Trump.

When Bezos pulled the Post’s endorsement of Kamala Harris at the last minute, some 250,000 subscribers quit the paper.

Last week, at the New York Times “Dealbook Summit,” Bezos told Andrew Ross Sorkin that he was proud of that decision, and that he’s “very optimistic” about Trump’s second term. As Darcy put it, “Jeff Bezos really wants those government contracts.”

He also said he’s working on a plan to return the Post to profitability.

“I have a bunch of ideas and I am working on that right now,” Bezos said, according to to the Hollywood Reporter. “We saved The Washington Post once; this will be the second time.” He also admitted, “I’m a terrible owner for the Post from the point of view of an appearance of conflict of interest,” given that executives from Amazon, and his other companies such as Blue Origin, often meet with government representatives. But he said that must be weighed against his financial resources for the paper. “I am the doting parent in that regard.”

 

One important way for media owners to deal with conflicts of interest is to remove themselves from editorial decisions and to be clear with readers about that. That’s the opposite of what Bezos did with the Harris editorial. And I worry that his “bunch of ideas” may include more of the same. His decision to install Will Lewis of Murdoch World as the paper’s publisher doesn’t say much for his wisdom at the moment.

But what should news consumers — aka citizens — do?

I’ve been struggling with that question, and I know some of you have, too. Many of my professional contacts and friends have left what was Twitter, now X, in protest of Elon Musk’s policies there, including the elevation of white supremacists and the unending love for all things Trump. Many have decamped for a Twitter lookalike known as Bluesky.

I’m on Bluesky, too, but haven’t fully left X, though I post less often. It continues to be useful to me. For example, last week, as I thought of writing a Guardian column urging President Biden to pardon the whistleblower Reality Winner, I was able to reach her mother in moments via a direct message on X, where we follow each other, and immediately set up an interview. (I also stay for commentary on my teams, the Buffalo Bills and the New York Knicks.)

I’ve kept my subscription to the Washington Post because I want to support the journalists there, many of whom I know and because so much of the work continue to be excellent.

But I understand and appreciate why people have made different decisions and have voted with their feet — and their wallets.

At this moment, I’m especially appreciative of news organizations such as the Guardian (I write weekly there), ProPublica and others, which have no paywall and are doing important journalism — often funded by philanthropy or membership.

As for my former employer, the New York Times, I have complaints about some editorial decisions there, but — so far — I don’t see the billionaire syndrome at work. Big picture: I’m worried that truthful, verified information is becoming unaffordable to many Americans, while disinformation is free for all.

The real answers to the billionaire syndrome lie in a different realm — that of tax policy and media regulation, and the reordering of our society’s priorities and systems. Given the incoming administration, none of that is coming soon.