The Washington Post's op-ed policy continues to devolve toward idiocy and farce. They still publish Charles Krauthammer, whose opinions on war and foreign policy have proven wrong time after time. They continue to publish George Will, greenhouse effect denier, rape denier etc. etc.
The latest bit of op-ed filth from my point of view is a column in today's Post advocating violence against bike riders.
It is by Courtland Milloy, and it's chock full of falsehoods, contradictions, distortions, code words and race baiting.
Naturally, it's one of the Post's top-trending clicks, so I'd rather not provide a direct link.
Here's the takedown from the Washington Area Bicyclist Association: http://www.waba.org/...
which includes this gem:
At one time, Milloy seemed to recognize the need for this dedicated space for bicyclists, as his own 1998 account of biking after his license was suspended for excessive speeding included being caught in the common bicyclist’s catch-22 in which you are welcome on neither the roadway nor the sidewalk, and there is no third option.
Here's the point by point response from Washington's City paper:
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/...
And here's a DC-based bike blogger's take: http://www.thewashcycle.com/...
Of course, BikesnobNYC has a run at it too: http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.com/...
Like Bikesnob, I'm actually fairly sympathetic with local concerns about gentrification in DC, and how to make sure that as cities are reborn and grow, they don't displace long-time residents. It's important to note that Milloy doesn't live in DC, however. He lives in surburban Fort Washington MD, a car-dependent high-income community outside the beltway. He's not interested in solving the problems that accompany urban growth -- he's just spreading his inner hatefulness around irresponsibly to get attention.
We could easily just dismiss this sort of thing as click trolling, but, for better or worse, the Post's editorial and op-ed policies are influential. And suggestions of violence from people in positions of influence can be amplified by the weak minded, or fearful, or hate-prone, or mentally ill.
The Post's editorial advocacy of fiscal austerity during a deep recession has proven to be extremely destructive to our economic capacity. Their complicity in the runup to the Iraq war was unforgivably deadly. Maybe those issues are more important than a stupid screed that advocates running bikes off the road, but I ride in the DC area every day. It's personal.
What can be done about this?
Well, the Post's readership has already taken a hit as their business model dies off (both the technology and the readers themselves it seems). So canceling your subscription isn't likely to be noticed.
A better form of protest may be to simply boycott Amazon. (The Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.)
I will admit up front that I have a (small) conflict of interest. My spouse owns a local retail shop that competes with Amazon. She pays local taxes and contributes to our community in ways that big box stores or Internet retailers don't. She doesn't get tax abatements like the big boxes and Internet warehouses, and she doesn't benefit from Internet sales tax avoidance.
And I even sort of like Amazon's technology and service -- they do an admirable job at what they do in many ways.
But for better or worse, Amazon bought the Post and is allowing the Post's vile and destructive op-ed trolling to continue.
A boycott of Amazon might just get their attention.
Jeff Bezos has his email is posted in the public domain precisely so that he can get an idea about consumer satisfaction issues:
jeff@amazon.com
Please join me in sending a message to Mr. Bezos that the current stewardship of the Washington Post is wrong and destructive, and that editorial changes must be made.
If not only for the sake of its declining business model, perhaps he could be persuaded to make changes for the good of our country's political discourse.
Violence -- whether against the atmosphere, women, or mere bicyclists -- should not be advocated on the op-ed pages of the Washington Post, and columnists advocating violence should not be given a platform in a once-great newspaper.
Thanks for considering.
Update: Commenters make a fair point about the link from Jeff Bezos' ownership back to Amazon, which is the source of the fortune that allowed him to buy the Post. Another point, which is sort of obvious, is that a boycott on an enormous company like Amazon couldn't conceivably be noticeable financially.
Here's my opinion on those perfectly valid points.
First, I believe in this case you have to go through the Post management to the owner, precisely because the Post wants to profit from the controversy. These sorts of hack pieces don't come from nowhere -- they are tolerated or even encouraged because they get hits. So complaining to the Post isn't a useful strategy. You have to get to the owner, who has the power to change the way the Post thinks about the value of clicks and irritating a whole generation of potential readers.
Second, the idea of a boycott is more about the suggestion. Public perception of the "coolness" of a company is important. Companies whose names are frequently associated with strikes or boycotts or protests aren't cool. I fully realize that jeff@amazon.com is highly unlikely to read my email or the emails of hundreds of others.
My objective is to not get myself or my wife or our friends killed on DC area streets. It doesn't really matter whether Bezos is a Democrat, or a good guy or whatever. He's the owner of a paper that thinks it's good yuks to threaten my safety. If you have to use his larger business as a conduit to get his attention, I think that's perfectly reasonable, if perhaps not perfectly fair.