Summary

The recent decision by certain prominent newspapers to abstain from endorsing presidential candidates has sparked public debate over the news media’s role in election coverage. While some view this as a step toward objectivity and impartiality, others suggest that billionaire influence could be affecting editorial choices. This article examines both perspectives, assesses the underlying responsibilities of a free press, increasing entanglement of business interests and news media, and proposes a better path forward by placing large news organizations in the hands of neutral trust custodians.

The Role of a Free Press

The First Amendment protects the freedom of the press in the United States. One of the foundations of American law is that centralized power and authority is dangerous. The current power construct includes three branches of federal government and fifty state governments, among many other legal power-sharing requirements. Transparency in policies, special interests, and how elected and appointed officials spend taxpayer funds is essential and extremely difficult to achieve.

A free press is supposed to operate beyond political influence, just like separation of church and state. There are simply too many deeply held beliefs and opinions that would end up corrupting governmental functions that exist to provide stability for all. News media organizations no longer seem like a free press.

Challenges of Maintaining a Free Press

A recent study by Johns Hopkins analyzed that pharmaceutical companies spend billions on news media advertising each year, and that more than half of prescription drugs advertised have low added benefit. The National Institutes of Health and many other studies concluded that millions of Americans suffer from opioid use disorder. According to the Department of Justice, this epidemic was partially caused by misconduct by pharmaceutical companies, a claim substantiated by Purdue Pharma pleading guilty to criminal charges and paying an $8 billion settlement. Absent from news media reporting was whether new organizations were complicit in creating the opioid epidemic through the billions of dollars in advertising received by pharmaceutical companies.

The False Billionaire Influence Question

In the last decade, high-profile acquisitions of major news outlets by billionaire owners have raised public concerns about potential conflicts of interest. Jeff Bezos, owner of a leading American newspaper, has faced questions over his influence on editorial choices, including the decision to abstain from candidate endorsements. Similarly, Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (rebranded as X) with a pledge to protect free speech highlights the broader impact that influential individuals can have on the information ecosystem. Many other extremely wealthy individuals and families own news media organizations.

While Bezos seems to be staying out of endorsing a presidential candidate, Musk is actively supporting the Trump campaign. Other billionaires, like Mark Cuban, while not owning a major news media organization, are actively supporting the Harris campaign. Musk’s support of Trump has not prevented Cuban’s support of Harris on the X platform.

Questions raised by billionaires transparently owning news organizations should also apply to billionaires that fund news organizations through billions in advertising expenditures, with little to no transparency.

Editorial Freedom Requires Neutrality

Underlying reasons why people support various political candidates vary based on numerous factors. An editor or editorial board expressing their opinion on political preference comes as the expense of public trust.

Editorial freedom does not mean a group of people having the discretion to opine on who the American People should elect as their next president. Editorial freedom means being free from the desire, urge, and influence of wanting to advocate for a political outcome.

If the People elect Harris, Trump, or another candidate, then so be it. The free press should not wake up on inauguration day and feel as if they failed due to a political outcome.

Just as there is an appearance of impropriety of billionaires with government contracts endorsing or not endorsing a presidential candidate, that same level of impropriety exists when a news organization endorses a candidate.

What happens when the news organization’s endorsed candidate wins office? There is no longer public trust that the news media is going to apply the same level of scrutiny and advocate for the same level of transparency.

Endorsing candidates gives the impression that there is less for the public to worry about with one candidate over another. The truth is that the free press exists to help balance the power that the public gives to any person holding political office. The same level of distrust in government must apply no matter which party or candidate holds office.

A Path Forward: Media Trust Custodianship

As news media face growing scrutiny over potential biases and corporate conflicts of interest, a possible solution may be for all billionaire owners to place influential news organizations in the hands of neutral trust custodians. Under this model, strict neutrality guidelines will facilitate presentation of all sides of major issues of concern. This model will be akin to news organizations acting more in a judicial role of safeguarding information quality being presented to juries instead of making recommendations on outcomes of important public decisions. Serving public interest and making a profit are still possible under this model.

By transferring ownership to independent custodians, news organizations could operate with enhanced transparency and accountability. This solution may be particularly relevant for national news outlets whose reach can shape opinions and decisions on a grand scale. Removing the influence of private owners could reinforce the integrity of election coverage and protect the sacred public trust enshrined in the First Amendment.

Conclusion

As the American public continues to question the role and information quality provided by the news media, the choice to abstain from endorsements has ignited a necessary conversation about journalistic ethics. The increasing entanglement of business interests with media influence is a complex reality, but addressing it is crucial for upholding the press’s essential function as a public trust. While stepping back from endorsements might promote neutrality, a shift to custodianship could provide the ultimate protection against bias and preserve the press’s fundamental duty to inform, not influence, society.

What Does Objective Information Quality Assessment Look Like?

Capy News is specifically publishing this article to present a unique perspective on news media organizations and demonstrate how news organizations can judge themselves.

“Based on the Capy News criteria, this article rates at Moderate (60-70%). While it offers a thought-provoking view on the ethical issues of media endorsements, it lacks thorough multi-source verification and the absence of broader contextual comparisons. The piece is informative but could be strengthened by additional perspectives, independent sources, and a more robust examination of specific claims.”

News organizations exist to provide the public with needed transparency, but must also provide that same level of transparency on their own operations and content. No editorial political endorsement will ever rise to the level of high information quality.

By Dean Korsak, Copyright 2024 CAPY News, LLC, All Rights Reserved

#Election2024 #MediaBias #VoterEducation #ElectionIntegrity #CAPYNews #KamalaHarris #DonaldTrump