The Washington Post sits indecisive during the most dangerous time in history | Tim Adams

TThe theory is that journalists should report the news rather than making it headlines – but on Friday Washington Postthe celebrated ally of American democracy during Watergate, broke this principle. The newspaper refused to support the candidate who will defend the rule of law in the upcoming election and opposes the convicted criminal who has shown time and again – not least on January 6, 2021 – that he explicitly aims to… to overthrow the rule of law.

The Posts British chief executive Will Lewis wrote an editorial stating that this was the case post would sit on the fence in the most important US election of modern times (recalling the old truth: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”).

However, this editorial was followed by an act of open sedition on the part of the newsroom postwhich revealed the inside story of the alleged influence on that decision by Jeff Bezos, the Amazon oligarch who bought the newspaper for $250 million in 2013.

Bezos now finds himself in what one might call the “libertarian” billionaire’s dilemma. By ensuring the editorial independence of the Post, It's not quite the case that he completes the current story of his own meddling; The result is that – in a newspaper that trumpets “Democracy dies in darkness” – the cowardly decision-making of the owner and the CEO is on display for all to see.

And for those of us who first had the idea of ​​becoming journalists after watching All the president's menIt's pleasing to read that Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein are still front and center in this latest deep throat exposé.

Follow the money

At the Serpentine North Gallery in London's Hyde Park there is a fascinating exhibition dedicated to perhaps the most consequential legal dispute of our time – the question of who owns individual human creativity: Are the words of writers and the melodies of musicians simply data? “scraped” by AI companies trying to reproduce them for their own benefit, or should these individual human actions be protected by copyright in the normal way?

The Call, a collaboration between artists Holly Herndon and Mat Dryhurst, compellingly dramatizes this question—including with a cacophony of “singing records” that swell with human voices in digital concerts.

The exhibition invites the idea that AI, if used wisely, can help the world sing in perfect harmony. But there is another age-old principle at stake here: Cui bonofollow the money.

If multinational corporations are so keen to use all of our ideas to train their machines, the opposite must be true: their closely guarded content creation algorithms must also become open, for the transparent and regulated benefit of all of us.

Pay attention to the gap

Few acts of vandalism have had as emotional an impact as the felling of the popular Sycamore Gap tree in Northumberland. In response, the National Trust's Trees of Hope campaign called on communities to lay claim to 49 sycamore saplings (one for each foot of the original's height) to be planted as a tribute.

On Friday, I submitted a last-minute request for one of these seedlings on behalf of this newspaper and its loyal community of readers. I admit that this was partly an act of long-overdue contrition to all the kind correspondents who have written to me and my colleagues over the years to politely ask, “How many trees had to die for this nonsense to get printed?”

What better chance to finally start restoring balance?