Why the Washington Post is dead to me

And why I haven’t canceled the NY Times despite its flaws

A lot of people are fed up with a lot of news media, and it’s easy to understand why.

Most mainstream outlets amplify the Trump regime’s lies and underplay its erosion of our freedoms. But it would be a mistake to shut everything out. We need to be more engaged, not less. We need a variety of reliable news sources. If we limit our news intake to one or two outlets, we’re making the same mistake that Fox News viewers do.

So, how do we decide which outlets to banish and which to embrace? Even quality newsrooms screw up sometimes, so it’s wise to avoid knee-jerk decisions based on one mistake or one stupid remark. On the other hand, repeated misbehavior should not be tolerated. I’ve canceled my subscription to the Washington Post but have not yet done so with the New York Times. In this newsletter, I’ll explain why. But first, here are a few ways to evaluate news outlets.

First, it’s important to be suspicious of corporate media, whose top priority is making money, not speaking truth to power. Two legacy outfits, ABC News and CBS News, are paying millions of dollars in protection money to stay out of Trump’s crosshairs. What else will they do to appease him? CBS parent Paramount denied that its decision to cancel Stephen Colbert’s top-rated late-night talk show was related to the show’s anti-MAGA content. But excuse me if I disbelieve that.

A second suggestion: Ask yourself whether a news org gives you something that nothing else does – something beyond “commodity news” based on press releases and news conferences. If you’re paying for news (and you should pay for news), it’s fair to expect unique insights or exclusives.

And third, look for transparency and passionate advocacy for the truth. If a news outlet has biases (and believe me, they all do), does it indicate those in any way? When I say “biases,” I really mean values. Left-leaning news outlets like The New Republic and COURIER (which sponsors this newsletter) are operating in defense of democracy while remaining faithful to the facts. ProPublica and the Guardian state clear missions to expose abuses of power, so it’s only natural that they frequently write about MAGA corruption. That doesn’t make them partisan; it makes them responsible and on-brand. Fox, on the other hand, claims to offer journalism with "diversity of thought,” while it regularly churns out lies.

One of the challenges in developing a varied news diet is that so many right-wing outlets produce disinformation. An exception is the Bulwark, which is center-right while holding onto factual reality and opposing Trump’s misconduct.

Meanwhile, too many mainstream media outlets assume a posture of objectivity and “fairness” that makes them do ridiculous things. For example, the Associated Press recently quoted convicted liar Roger Stone in a story about how Trump is supposedly “a changed man” after the assassination attempt.

Both the Washington Post and the New York Times embrace this type of false fairness. It causes them to write cowardly headlines and soft-pedal the danger posed by Trump. But both publications have also published important stories about our political crisis, so it’s a chore to weigh the good against the bad.

The problem with the Post is its ownership. Post owner Jeff Bezos has other major businesses, including a behemoth called Amazon. He knows if WaPo ticks off Trump, he risks revenge against his other commercial ventures. So he sucks up. Bezos vetoed WaPo’s planned endorsement of Kamala Harris last year. He sat in the row of oligarchs at Trump’s inauguration after giving the event $1 million. And Amazon’s deal to produce a documentary on Melania Trump is expected to put tens of millions of dollars in her bank account.

Bezos hired Will Lewis as WaPo’s publisher despite Lewis’ ties to Fox owner Rupert Murdoch’s phone hacking scandal in the UK. Bezos announced in February that WaPo’s opinion section would be focused on “two pillars”: “free markets” and “personal liberties.” Those categories are open to interpretation, but staffers saw the writing on the wall. Opinion editor David Shipley resigned, as have many other key staffers. The Post is bleeding talent. Two weeks ago, columnist Joe Davidson quit because editors spiked a piece critical of Trump.

Bezos’ new opinion editor, Adam O’Neal, recently expanded on the “two pillars” idea with a staff memo declaring that the Post will "communicate with optimism about this country.” At a time when democracy is under assault and Trump’s tariff insanity is hurting the economy, an official posture of “optimism” sounds like an order to whitewash authoritarianism.

I cancelled my subscription after “two pillars,” and I have not regretted it. The Washington Post is dead to me as a trusted news source.

I’m not ready to bury the NYT yet. But I wish it would stop trying to fit Trumpism into a picture of a normal America when what’s happening is deeply abnormal. The NYT’s editors have long known the threat Trump poses, but instead of doing their duty and warning the public about the impending disaster, they’ve opted to describe the unfolding wreckage.

The NYT’s leadership is misguided, but I don't think it’s corrupt like WaPo’s. The NYT doesn't seem afraid of Trump. Its editorial page endorsed Harris last year.

Even with its flaws, I think we need the New York Times. Our country is buried in right-wing propaganda, so I’ll take the NYT’s facts and generally ignore its spin. That is, as long as it doesn’t start producing video valentines to Melania Trump.

---

Advertise in this newsletter

Do you or your company want to support COURIER’s mission and showcase your products or services to an aligned audience of 190,000+ subscribers at the same time? Contact advertising@couriernewsroom.com for more information.