Gannett-owned USA Today and more than 200 other chain newspapers will not endorse a presidential candidate — joining the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times in choosing to remain silent in next week’s election .
“None of the USA Today Network publications endorses the presidential or national races,” USA Today spokesperson Lark-Marie Antón told The Hill.
Antón said that while Gannett-owned publications will not endorse candidates in national races, they do have the “discretion” to endorse at a state or local level.
USA Today and more than 200 other Gannett-owned newspapers will not endorse candidates in national races. Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
“Many have decided not to support individual candidates, but instead to endorse key local and state issues on the ballot that affect the community,” Antón told the Hill.
“Why are we doing this? Because we believe that the future of America is decided at the local level – one race at a time,” said Antón.
“And with more than 200 publications nationwide, our public service is to provide readers with the facts that matter and the reliable information they need to make informed decisions.”
Gannett owns newspapers in major states that include the Arizona Republic and the Detroit Free Press.
Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos wrote an op-ed in his newspaper Monday defending his decision not to endorse a presidential candidate, calling it “fair” and “principled.”
Amazon’s founder pushed back against any notion that he ordered it to protect his business interests.
The decision, announced on Friday, is said to have led to tens of thousands of people canceling their subscriptions and protests by journalists with a deep history at the paper.
Jeff Bezos blocked the Washington Post editorial board from endorsing Kamala Harris. AFP via Getty Images
The Post editorial board was prepared to back Harris before publisher Will Lewis wrote instead that readers would be better off making up their own minds.
Bezos, in “a note from our owner” published Monday evening, said editorial endorsements create a perception of bias at a time when many Americans distrust the media and do nothing to tip the election scales.
“Terminating them is a principled decision and it’s the right one,” Bezos said.
Polls show Harris in a virtual tie with former President Donald Trump. Reuters
Bezos wrote that he wished the decision to end presidential endorsements had been made earlier, “at a time away from the election and the excitement surrounding it. This was inadequate planning and not any deliberate strategy.”
NPR reported Monday that more than 200,000 people have canceled their subscriptions to the paper, citing “two people at the paper with knowledge of internal affairs.”
A Washington Post spokeswoman would not comment on NPR’s report.
WaPo’s decision came just days after the Los Angeles Times also said it would not endorse a presidential candidate, a decision the paper has acknowledged cost it thousands of subscribers.
High-powered lawyers representing Big Tech clients have co-hosted a series of fundraisers for Kamala Harris’ campaign as the 2024 presidential election approaches — and antitrust watchdogs are crying foul.
Last Thursday, a group of “antitrust lawyers and economists for Harris” held a virtual fundraiser featuring former US Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta. Ticket prices ranged up to $6,600, according to a copy of an invitation obtained by The Post.
Notable co-hosts included Daniel Bitton, a partner at San Francisco-based law firm Axinn, which is defending Google in the Biden-Harris DOJ lawsuit targeting its alleged monopoly over digital advertising.
Other co-chairs included Renata Hesse, who once played down concerns about Google’s monopoly on Internet search; Edith Ramirez, a Democratic former FTC chair who once defended Google-owned YouTube in a children’s privacy lawsuit; and Ethan Glass, who has repped clients like JetBlue against US antitrust complaints.
Kamala Harris’s campaign surrogates have signaled that she will take a more business-friendly stance. ZUMAPRESS.com
“This is a group of ‘Big Law’ lawyers who have represented monopolists against the FTC and the DOJ, and they are brazenly trying to storm the citadel after being shut out during the Biden years,” said a Democrat who focuses on antitrust issues. Post office.
The Post reached out to the campaign of Harris, Bitton, Hesse, Ramirez and Glass for comment, but did not hear back.
Earlier this month, The Post reported on conflict-of-interest concerns that arose after several key members of Google’s legal team co-hosted an Oct. 18 fundraiser for Harris in Washington, D.C. — with tickets costing up to $50,000. dollars.
Karen Dunn, a lead litigator at the white-shoe law firm Paul Weiss who infamously led the preparation of Harris’ last debate against Trump on the same day she gave Google’s opening defense in the digital advertising trial, was listed as co-chair.
Daniel Bitton is part of the team defending Google in the DOJ’s antitrust case targeting its digital advertising business. Axinn
Dunn’s colleagues Jeannie Rhee and Bill Isaacson also attended the event, which featured appearances by former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Uber general counsel and Harris’ brother-in-law Tony West and former U.S. Attorney Acting General, Sally Yates.
Just one day later, longtime Amazon general counsel David Zapolsky co-hosted a fundraiser with top Harris campaign surrogate and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, according to a copy of the invitation obtained by The Post.
In California, Newsom recently vetoed an AI security bill that had been heavily lobbied by tech venture firm Andreessen Horowitz and trade groups representing Google and Meta. After initially opposing the bill, Amazon-backed artificial intelligence firm Anthropic expressed lukewarm support for the bill after securing amendments.
Edith Ramirez is listed as co-chairing a fundraiser for the Harris campaign last Thursday. Getty Images
The offensive is taking place as Big Tech firms face an unprecedented wave of antitrust litigation.
Apple and Google are in the midst of landmark Justice Department antitrust cases, while Amazon and Facebook are currently being sued by the Federal Trade Commission. AI leaders such as chip supplier Nvidia and OpenAI also have the attention of regulators.
“It should be deeply troubling to anyone, Republican or Democrat, who cares about reining in Big Tech monopolies that (the Harris campaign) continues to hold fundraisers with lawyers for Google and other big tech companies,” the executive said. of public affairs Garrett Ventry.
Top regulators appointed by the Biden-Harris administration, including FTC Chairman Lina Khan and SEC Chairman Gary Gensler, have faced backlash from Silicon Valley bigwigs for leading a crackdown on prominent firms active in the sectors. of artificial intelligence and cryptocurrencies.
Renata Hesse once downplayed concerns about Google’s monopoly on Internet search. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
In July, billionaire Reid Hoffman sparked outrage among progressives when he accused Khan of waging “war on American business” and openly called on Harris to fire him if elected. Other Democratic attorneys, including Mark Cuban, have called for Gensler to be forced out.
The backlash has contributed to a surprising shift in Silicon Valley support for Trump — most notably in the form of Elon Musk, who recently declared himself a “dark MAGA” and contributed millions to his campaign.
Harris’ campaign has made clear efforts to secure Silicon Valley, a longtime source of support and large donations for Democrats.
Harris’ top replacements such as Cuban and West have stated publicly and behind closed doors that she would take a more friendly stance toward corporate interests if elected.
Karen Dunn (center) and other Google lawyers organized a fundraiser for Kamala Harris earlier this month. Reuters
Cuban, asked by The Post if he had any idea how a Harris administration would handle Big Tech’s antitrust issues, replied, “I don’t.”
Last week, the Washington Post reported that West and former Treasury official Brian Nelson have told groups of tech executives that they are in “listening mode” during private outreach meetings on Harris’ behalf.
Andreesen Horowitz co-founder Ben Horowitz, who previously expressed support for Trump, reversed course last month by pledging a “significant” donation to Harris. Horowitz said he “had several conversations with Vice President Harris and her team about their potential technology policies, and I’m encouraged by my confidence in her.”
Kamala Harris has yet to take a firm stance on how she will approach Big Tech’s antitrust issues. Getty Images
In September, Harris released an economic policy outline that provided arguably the most substantive picture of the policies she would pursue in office.
The 82-page document said a Harris administration would “encourage innovative technologies like artificial intelligence and digital assets while protecting our consumers and investors” — but referred to the word “antitrust only once.”
Some antitrust watchdogs previously warned that corporate-friendly advisers in Harris’ orbit could lobby behind the scenes for leniency toward Google — potentially in the form of a “slap on the wrist” rather than a full divestment sought by the feds.
In August, the DOJ won a landmark victory after Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Google was a “monopolist” with an illegal stranglehold on the Internet search market. He is expected to decide on remedies by next summer – and the feds have floated a forced sale of Google’s Android software or the Chrome browser as possible fixes.
Meanwhile, closing arguments in the DOJ’s digital advertising antitrust case are expected to conclude in November. Google chief Sundar Pichai has admitted that he expects the company to be involved in antitrust litigation and appeals for “many years”.
According to a report, the Washington Post — hit by a mass exodus of subscribers over its refusal to endorse Kamala Harris — “aggressively stepped up its paid advertising campaign” on social media platforms that promote stories critical of Donald Trump, according to a report. , according to a report.
Owner Jeff Bezos has faced backlash over his decision last week to kill the endorsement for the vice president, which has led to the resignation of several top employees and the loss of more than 250,000 digital subscribers.
On Thursday, the Semafor news site reported that the publication had run an ad earlier in the week on social media sites like Facebook boosting its anti-Trump coverage.
The newspaper has been in turmoil in recent days over owner Jeff Bezos’ decision not to endorse a candidate. AP
Promoted stories centered around the former president’s campaign rhetoric, misstatements, supporters leaving his rallies early and Trump’s controversial comments about immigrants in Ohio eating dogs, Semaphore reported.
In contrast, stories promoted about his Democratic challenger were neutral in tone and informative, Semafor found.
Before Monday, the paper had run about a dozen Facebook ads for the month of October, mostly promoting the Washington Post brand and avoiding any mention of Trump.
The New York Post reached out to WaPo for comment.
A source close to the situation told the New York Post that the Washington Post’s promoted stories on social media reflect high-performing content.
The content of the advertising posts is taken directly from the relevant reporting, according to the source.
“This is not new,” the source insisted.
The Washington Post’s promoted posts include a mix of its content across all its verticals, including climate, style and other sections, the source added.
The Beltway newspaper’s increase in paid advertising this week may also be a reflection of parent company Facebook Meta’s policy of banning new ads during election week, which is set for Tuesday.
The Washington Post is running social media ads promoting stories critical of former President Donald Trump. Reuters
A source said the Washington Post is likely to run some new ads before the tech giant freezes new ad buys.
As of Thursday, at least 250,000 readers — or 10% — canceled their digital subscriptions to the Washington Post in apparent protest of Bezos’ move to end the paper’s decades-long practice of endorsing a presidential candidate, according to National Public Radio.
Bezos, the billionaire founder of Amazon, published a guest essay on Monday saying the decision to drop endorsements was a matter of “principle” aimed at dispelling the notion that his paper was biased.
But the move sparked howls of protest from readers on social media, as well as journalists who are either current or former Washington Post employees, such as Watergate sleuths Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein.
At least three editorial staff resigned from the paper.
After Bezos’ decision was announced last Friday, some of the paper’s top editors and columnists met to discuss the controversy.
Bezos, the billionaire founder of Amazon, said blocking an approval was a matter of “principle.” Gareth Cattermole/Getty Images
David Shipley, the paper’s opinion editor, listened as his colleagues attacked Bezos for damaging the publication’s reputation as an “independent journalistic organization,” according to the Washington Free Beacon, which obtained audio of the meeting.
One staffer reportedly told Shipley that “the one thing that cannot happen in this country is that Trump has four more years.”
Shipley responded by telling staff that they were welcome to express their frustration, but that they would then have to accept Bezos’ decision and move on — or resign.
Start your day with the latest business news at your fingertips
Subscribe to our daily Business Report newsletter!
Thanks for signing up!
“Whatever you decide, I’m fine with it,” Shipley said.
“What I really want to give is that you don’t get stuck in the middle. Don’t be here if you don’t want to.”
Shipley told his colleagues that he spent an hour on the phone with Bezos in an attempt to get him to change his mind and allow the editorial board to issue its endorsement to Harris — but the tycoon refused to budge.
The Washington Post editorial board reportedly had an endorsement of Harris drafted and ready for publication. Getty Images
He said that while he agreed with “the principle that you shouldn’t do presidential endorsements,” he took issue with “Bezos’ timing and the way the timing could be read.”
A similar dynamic has played out at the Los Angeles Times, where billionaire owner Patrick Soon-Shiong blocked the editorial board from publishing an endorsement of Harris.
Soon-Shiong said she wanted the editorial board to present a side-by-side comparative analysis of the two candidates and their positions so readers could decide for themselves who to support.
At least three LA Times employees resigned in protest, and between 10,000 and 18,000 readers canceled their subscriptions to the paper, according to reports.
More than 500 Amazon employees sent a letter Wednesday to the CEO of its AWS unit calling for the cancellation of a full back-to-office policy and refuting his assertion that the rule had broad support and opponents should leave Amazon Web Services.
“We were horrified to hear the clueless explanation you gave for Amazon imposing a five-day office mandate,” the letter begins.
AWS CEO Matt Garman said at an Oct. 17 plenary meeting of the cloud computing unit that nine out of 10 workers he spoke with support the back-to-office policy, which will take effect early next year.
The CEO of Amazon Web Services said earlier this month that nine out of 10 workers he spoke with support the back-to-office policy. AFP via Getty Images
Those comments are “contrary to the experiences of many employees” and “misrepresent the reality of working at Amazon,” according to the letter, which Reuters reviewed after it was sent to Garman.
An Amazon spokesman said the company offers commuter benefits, elder care and subsidized parking rates, among other things, to help with office work.
Garman had said he was “pretty excited about this change” and that, under the current three-day-a-week policy, collaboration was very difficult because people could be in the office on different days.
The company-wide policy, announced in September by Amazon CEO Andy Jassy, has been controversial within Amazon, with many calling it wasteful because it adds travel time and costs when telecommuting has been effective. Some say they plan to leave the company. Amazon has implemented the policy by asking many workers to go to regional offices, move to Seattle or “voluntarily resign.”
Garman’s comments do not reflect any independent data, the letter states, and “undermine the confidence of your employees, who not only have personal experience that demonstrates the benefits of remote work, but have seen extensive data that supports that experience.” . €
Requiring five days in the office each week also particularly affects protected classes of workers, such as those with neurodiversity or childcare responsibilities, and “does not support the ‘Strive to be the Earth’s Best Employer’ leadership principle espoused by Amazon.” .according to the letter.
Amazon CEO Andy Jassy ordered employees to return to the office five days a week starting next year. Getty Images for the New York Times
Attached to the letter were anonymous stories from a dozen Amazon workers who said adhering to a five-day office policy would be difficult or impossible due to, among other things, family obligations, travel schedules or medical needs.
One said the nearest office is four hours away; another said their spouse would have to quit her job to accommodate a move across the country; and another said they are more efficient working from home.
“I used to be proud of my job and excited about my future here,” said one. “I don’t feel it with this.â€
Attached to the letter were anonymous stories from a dozen Amazon workers who said adhering to a five-day office policy would be difficult or impossible due to, among other things, family obligations, travel schedules or medical needs. AFP via Getty Images
The letter linked to a 2020 blog post in which Garman wrote that AWS had operated effectively early in the pandemic when most workers were remote.
Amazon has taken a stricter approach to back-to-office mandates than many of its tech peers who are implementing two- and three-day policies. The company has said the policy helps workers “invent, collaborate and connect,” and Garman suggested “we didn’t really accomplish anything” under the three-day policy.
