At this point, you have to ask: Is Jeff Bezos purposely trying to sabotage the reputation of The Washington Post?
Months after nixing an editorial board endorsement of Kamala Harris for president — and losing thousands of subscribers and a few respected journalists in the aftermath — Bezos made another startling decision Wednesday involving the paper’s opinion section.
As a result, well-respected journalist David Shipley has decided to step down as the Post’s opinion editor.
In a memo to staff posted on X, Bezos wrote of the major change coming to the opinion section: “We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.”
Bezos added, “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.”
Bezos said he greatly admires Shipley and offered him a chance to lead this new directive, but Shipley said no and stepped away. Bezos added, “This is a significant shift, it won’t be easy, and it will require 100% commitment — I respect his decision. We’ll be searching for a new Opinion Editor to own this new direction.”
Bezos closed by writing, “I’m confident that free markets and personal liberties are right for America. I also believe these viewpoints are underserved in the current market of ideas and news opinion. I’m excited for us together to fill that void.
The email sent shockwaves through the media industry.
The New York Times’ Benjamin Mullin wrote, “Mr. Bezos’ decision to curtail the scope of views on The Post’s opinion pages is a major departure from the newspaper’s decades-long approach to commentary and criticism. Under Mr. Shipley and his predecessor, Fred Hiatt, The Post has published a wide variety of views from the left and the right, including liberal stalwarts like David Ignatius and Ruth Marcus and conservative voices like George Will and Charles Krauthammer. The new direction envisioned for The Post’s opinion section appears to be a rightward shift for the paper. Mr. Bezos’ new focus echoes what has long been the informal tagline of The Wall Street Journal’s conservative opinion pages: ‘Free markets, free people.’”
The New Republic’s Malcolm Ferguson wrote, “This announcement is the culmination of Bezos’s blatant attempts to align the Post with the political party currently in power.” Ferguson added, “This decision has been met with glee from conservatives and shock and disgust from just about everyone else.”
In a statement, former Washington Post executive editor Marty Baron, who worked for Bezos, said he was “sad and disgusted” by Bezos’ change.
Baron wrote, “It was only weeks ago that The Post described itself as providing coverage for ‘all of America.’ Now its opinion pages will be open to only some of America, those who think exactly as he does.”
Baron continued, “Bezos himself has done personal liberties a disservice by cravenly yielding to a president who shows no respect for liberty — one who aims to use the power of government to bully, threaten, punish and crush anyone who is not in his camp, especially the press.”
Then, Baron added, “There is no doubt in my mind that he is doing this out of fear of the consequences for his other business interests, Amazon (the source of his wealth) and Blue Origin (which represents his lifelong passion for space exploration). He has prioritized those commercial interests over The Post, and he is betraying The Post’s longstanding principles to do so.”
Matt Murray, executive editor of the Post, wrote a memo to the staff saying these new changes were only for the opinion section and would not affect the newsroom. He wrote the newsroom’s mission “to pursue engaging, impactful journalism without fear or favor” would remain intact.
There is no doubt in my mind that the superb newsroom staff will continue to do good and honest work. But you have to think that Bezos’ announcement, and the departure of Shipley, will further alienate staff, as well as many more readers who turn to the Post for strong coverage, particularly of Washington, D.C., and the White House.
Clearly, the Post is viewed differently than it was a year ago or even six months ago. Then again, with so much money, does Bezos even care that it appears he is bowing down to President Donald Trump and Republicans?
Post publisher and CEO Will Lewis said to staff in an email, “This is not about siding with any political party. This is about being crystal clear about what we stand for as a newspaper.”
But, clearly, those sentiments did not go over well with many, including from inside the Post.
Jeff Stein, the chief economics reporter at the Post, tweeted, “Massive encroachment by Jeff Bezos into The Washington Post’s opinion section today - makes clear dissenting views will not be published or tolerated there. I still have not felt encroachment on my journalism on the news side of coverage, but if Bezos tries interfering with the news side I will be quitting immediately and letting you know.”
Meanwhile, Shipley wrote in an email to staff that his decision to step down came “after reflection on how I can best move forward in the profession I love.” He added, “I will always be thankful for the opportunity I was given to work alongside a team of opinion journalists whose commitment to strong, innovative, reported commentary inspired me every day — and was affirmed by two Pulitzer Prizes and two Loeb Awards in two short years.”
‘It’s horrifying’
In the latest episode of “The Poynter Report Podcast,” recorded last week, I talked about Bezos and the Post with former longtime Post media writer Paul Farhi. This was before Wednesday’s news.
When I asked Farhi, who left the paper at the end of 2023, about what he had seen from the Post over the past several months, he didn’t hold back.
“I am now — because I no longer work there, no longer receive the paycheck — I’m free to say it’s horrifying. We — all the alumni, and there's an alumni chat group — trade impressions on a weekly, almost daily basis, and there’s nothing but, ‘Can you believe this going on?’ Because all of it is so disturbing and so contrary to what we, as Washington Post reporters, worked on, in my case for decades, for years. There’s a clear before and after here … and the after — it's a Washington Post we don't recognize, is what it basically comes down to. And you know, all of it would be maybe justifiable, or less horrifying, if it served the larger purpose of making the Washington Post more economically viable, but I don't see any evidence of that. Anything that they have done hasn't really made things better.”
Farhi said that “one of the most catastrophic things I've ever seen in all the history of The Washington Post” was Bezos’ decision to kill the Harris endorsement.”
Again, Farhi said this before Wednesday’s bombshell.
For a long time, Farhi said, Bezos was the ideal owner. He wrote checks and didn’t tell the Post how to spend the money. But that has clearly changed.
Farhi has lots more to say about the Post, so check out the podcast.
Tweet of the day
This, from former NBC News political director and former “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd: “Have folks realized yet that folks and corps with massive govt contracts are not to be trusted as owners of honest journalistic enterprises.”
Making a statement
