Trump is gaining ‘anticipatory obedience’ from media owners who bow to tyranny

Trump is gaining ‘anticipatory obedience’ from media owners who bow to tyranny

Parker Molloy writes:

I woke up this morning thinking about authoritarianism.

In his 2017 book On Tyranny, historian Timothy Snyder introduced the concept of “anticipatory obedience,” warning that “most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given.” He argued that in uncertain times, individuals and institutions might preemptively adjust their actions to align with what they believe a more repressive regime would want—often without being asked.

Forward to the final weeks of the 2024 presidential campaign, and Snyder’s warning feels eerily prescient. Media outlets, facing the potential return of Donald Trump to the White House, appear to be tiptoeing around coverage that might provoke his ire. This self-censorship isn’t just a disservice to journalism; it’s a disservice to democracy.

Take the turmoil at the Los Angeles Times. The newspaper, which had endorsed Democratic candidates in every presidential election since 2008, chose not to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris—or anyone—this year. The decision wasn’t based on a shift in editorial stance but was a directive from owner Patrick Soon-Shiong.

Mariel Garza, the editorials editor who resigned in protest, wrote in her resignation letter:

“How could we spend eight years railing against Trump and the danger his leadership poses to the country and then fail to endorse the perfectly decent Democrat challenger—who we previously endorsed for the US Senate?”

Her departure was soon followed by two more editorial board members, Robert Greene and Karin Klein, who also resigned over the decision. The fallout wasn’t just internal; readers noticed. According to internal figures shared with Semafor, the day after the news broke, 1,300 readers canceled their subscriptions—double the previous day’s number. Of those, 398 cited “editorial content” as the primary reason.

This isn’t just about one newspaper. It’s indicative of a broader trend where media organizations are seemingly adjusting their coverage to avoid drawing negative attention from powerful figures. [Continue reading…]

Comments are closed.