Jeff Bezos’ Assault on Journalism

“Democracy dies in Darkness” is actually the first slogan to be officially adopted by the Washington Post in 140 years, narrowly beating out “We’ve Got Hot Pocket Coupons”! Sadly, a quick perusal of the paper’s editorial page, and its supermarket insert, reveal that the formerly distinguished newspaper is not honoring either of these grand proclamations.

For those who don’t know, the Washington Post was once one of the most respected newspapers in America. Then, in 2013, it was purchased by Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon.com and person whose sexy poster is second only to Farrah Fawcett’s in gracing the walls of college boys nationwide.

When he bought the post, Bezos promised to refrain from interfering in the newspaper’s news-gathering and editorial decisions. And that makes sense. A newspaper’s reputation rests on the public’s perception that it is telling the truth as it finds it, not shilling for some dude’s company or shading it’s coverage to make it’s owner richer.

Consistent with that, Bezos refrained from interfering while his paper eviscerated Trump during his first term. But it’s no secret that Trump values revenge more highly than anything other than his family….

OK OK. I was kidding about the family part!

As a result, Bezos and Amazon soon found themselves the subject of Trump’s public ire, and more to the point, targeted governmental disfavor in contracts and other business opportunities.

This cost Bezos a lot of money. Soon, instead of being worth $197 Billion he was worth a measly $145 Billion. To put this in more relatable terms, instead of being able to afford 483,126,000 pairs of Men’s Air Jordan Retro 6es, he could only afford 354,523,000 pairs. And while stylish, those things wear out more quickly than you’d think.

So when Trump was elected to a second term, Bezos was hell-bent on doing all he could to avoid a repeat trip to the poor house. His newspaper congratulated Trump on a hard-fought victory. He donated a million dollars to and attended Trump’s inaugural, which involved sitting next to Mark Zuckerberg, which showed how far Bezos was willing to go.

And then, just this week, Bezos sent out a press release saying that going forward, the Washington Post would only publish editorials supportive of “the free market” and “personal liberties”. Put another way, the Washington Post editorial page is now in the business of printing only editorials that Jeff Bezos agrees with, and Jeff Bezos is only going to agree with editorials that supported Donald Trump’s MAGA agenda.

Some may argue that Bezos did not specifically mention Trump, and therefore we can’t say for sure that he’s soley going to be supporting all things MAGA. But dear obsessed and worshipful reader, think about it. In this context, the terms “free market” and “personal liberties” are meaningless.

A purely free market would involve no regulations whatsoever. Every banking regulation, environmental regulation, prohibition on using insider information when trading stocks, etc., are all limits on the market which make it, less “free”. Of course these restrictions and many more are necessary for a capitalistic society to function and there is no way the Post is going to editorialize in favor of, say…counterfeiting.

Similarly, “personal liberties” can mean anything, or nothing. I doubt Jeffers (that’s what Bezos likes me to call him) will be trying to gain Trump’s favor by printing editorials in favor of one’s personal liberty to access gender-affirming care, or use cocaine, or probably even have an abortion.

No, specific definitions are not the point. These are catch-all terms through which Bezos can justify what he’s really doing, which is asking himself “Will Donald Trump be happy with me if I print this?”.

It’s one thing to take an overtly pro-Trump position. But to be clear, Bezos is not just going to be printing essays that support Trump’s policy preferences, he’s gone much further than that. He made it clear, and I’m going to quote here, (you can tell by the quotation marks!) “…viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others”.

Wow. Even at the peak of the Soviet Union, Pravda was not as explicit about it’s absolute refusal to print dissenting opinions. And how does Bezos justify this radical position? Back to the quotation marks!

“There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job.”

Of all the things that this statement is, I think stupid best sums it up. Sure, you can find other opinions somewhere on the internet. But…and this should be obvious to Jeffers, that is true of EVERYTHING the Washington Post does.

Every news story Bezos prints can be found in other publications. How much the Sixers lost by and other things in the Post’s sports page are just a Google search away. Same with which stocks went up and down the day before, or the foreign stories that the Post prints word-for-word off of the AP wires. Even the Hot Pocket coupons can be found other places. If the reason for not printing things is that they can be found elsewhere, then there is literally no reason for the Washington Post to exist.

Ironically, differing opinions on contemporary issues are one of the few things that are often unique to a specific paper. While a diverging view on taxes or the importation of rare, endangered birds (free markets!) might exist somewhere on the internet, the particular views of a specific Washington Post editorial writer can often ONLY be found on the pages of that paper.

Finally, Bezos says that these changes are not about siding with any political party, except for the Republican one. (OK I added that last part).

Instead we are to believe “This is about being crystal clear about what we stand for as a newspaper”. This, of course, is laughably disingenuous bullshit. If you want to be “crystal clear”, have the editorial board write a crystal clear editorial speaking for the paper, like, for example, the one the board wrote endorsing Kamala Harris which Bezos killed.

This goes beyond making the paper’s official position clear, which would not require prohibiting even outside writers from publishing dissenting views. In fact, many papers, who are crystal clear about where they stand, then invite a guest writer to write a dissenting opinion. That’s what good journalism looks like.

The Washington Post, whose long, storied history of speaking truth to power included bringing down a corrupt President during Watergate, has turned into the journalistic equivalent of North Korean State TV. It is now the supplicant mouthpiece of our own Kim-jung-Orange. And THIS is what democracy dying looks like.