I'm quitting the Washington Post
A longtime Washington Post editorial cartoonist’s resignation over a spiked cartoon lampooning tech and media billionaires currying favor with President‑elect Trump has reignited debate over press freedom and owner interference in major newsrooms. Commenters argue over whether legacy outlets like the Post and New York Times are sliding into false “both-sides” coverage, partisan propaganda, or simply chasing ad-driven clicks, while billionaires and tech CEOs gain outsized influence over politics and media. Many see this as part of a broader shift toward Substack and alternative platforms, amid concerns that the hollowing out of traditional and especially local journalism poses real risks for democracy and public accountability.
Cartoon, Censorship, and Conflict of Interest
- Many see the killed cartoon—tech and media CEOs literally paying tribute to the incoming president—as mild and well within traditional editorial-cartoon norms.
- Others argue it’s obviously sensitive because it depicts the newspaper’s owner among the supplicants, creating a direct conflict of interest.
- Some think this was likely a “last straw” in a longer pattern of internal friction; others note the cartoonist resigned rather than being fired, so exact motives are unclear.
- A few commenters find the cartoon bland or poorly executed, questioning whether editorial rejection might have been about quality rather than censorship.
Media Bias and “Both Sides” Debate
- Strong disagreement over whether mainstream outlets are anti‑Trump/anti‑GOP, or conversely too cautious and “both-sidesy” toward Trump and the political right.
- One side claims near-uniform anti‑right bias, selective coverage, and sanitized descriptions (e.g., initial coverage of a rally shooting, wording around a vehicle bombing, treatment of aging politicians).
- The other side points to large conservative media ecosystems (cable networks, talk radio, podcasts) and argues that attempts at “balance” often become false equivalence when one side departs from facts.
- “Both sides” reporting is criticized as amplifying bad-faith or fact-free positions; defenders say the core mission remains fact-focused reporting, not advocacy.
Demise and Evolution of Traditional Media
- Multiple comments see traditional news as hollowed out or tabloidized, especially at the local level, with measurable civic costs.
- Others push back, noting remaining high-quality work at major outlets and growth in some magazines, but agree the trendline is negative.
- Ad-driven models and audience fragmentation are blamed; some argue this opened the door for billionaire capture and politicized ownership.
Oligarchs, Ownership, and Press Freedom
- Many frame the episode as part of a larger “oligarch problem”: billionaires owning outlets, seeking government favor, and chilling criticism.
- Some stress that term-limited presidents are less worrisome than entrenched corporate owners and tech magnates shaping media and policy for decades.
- There is concern that fear of retaliation (e.g., against other businesses owned by a media proprietor) narrows the Overton window of permissible criticism.
Role and Self-Image of Journalism
- One camp supports the cartoonist’s stance that journalism should hold power to account, including its own owners.
- Others consider this self‑aggrandizing, arguing that much of modern media is propaganda or ad sales, not a meaningful check on power.
- A recurring theme: distrust of legacy media, with some turning to social media, Substack, or alternative outlets—though others warn these are equally susceptible to billionaire influence and misinformation.