Bezos’ Revamp of The Washington Post Exposes the Fragility of Woke Culture
Jeff Bezos appears to have the audacity to think that he controls The Washington Post.
His perception of his role can be understood since, on a technical level, he does own the newspaper.
The billionaire entrepreneur acquired the struggling publication in 2013 and informed Post staff through a memo that the opinion pages would soon be dedicated to “supporting and defending two core pillars: personal liberties and free markets. While other topics will also be addressed, opposing viewpoints will be reserved for others to publish.”
Following this announcement, the opinion editor, David Shipley, resigned, sparking outrage among established and former WaPo staffers as well as progressive commentators.
Isn’t Bezos aware that an owner is expected to finance journalism that he may not agree with, even if he perceives it as detrimental to the country?
The newspaper’s economics reporter characterized Bezos’ move as a “significant intrusion into The Washington Post’s opinion section.”
Next, we might find Bezos expressing views on the management of Amazon and Blue Origin.
It’s not rare — in fact, it’s commonplace — for an owner to influence a newspaper’s editorial stance.
The Washington Post has been emblematic of liberal advocacy since its role in the Watergate scandal, making it easy to forget that its political alignment has changed over the years.
In the 1930s, the Republican banker Eugene Meyer purchased the financially troubled newspaper — does this sound familiar? — and turned it anti-New Deal.
The New York Times once had Republican leanings, and even your cherished New York Post hasn’t always exemplified the sound reasoning it demonstrates today.
Moreover, there are critiques directed at Bezos for the substantive direction he intends to take.
Left-leaning commentator Keith Olbermann referred to Bezos’ actions as rendering “the paper utterly fascist” — as if emphasizing free markets and personal liberties equates to authoritarianism.
Bezos faces accusations of pandering to Trump, yet if the president’s foes are concerned about his threats to freedom, they should appreciate that the Post is prioritizing liberty.
There’s undeniably a Trump-related dimension to Bezos’ actions. Like many in business, the Amazon founder seems to have warmed to Trump.
More significantly, Trump’s presidency — along with Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter — signaled a cultural shift allowing defiance against progressive social pressures, which we’re seeing in Meta’s movement toward a more free speech-oriented policy and Patrick Soon-Shiong’s efforts at the Los Angeles Times. All of this is a positive development.
A more critical assessment of Bezos’ directive is that the Post’s opinion pages, historically more diverse, aren’t the main issue at the paper.
The deeper concern lies with the significantly biased news coverage that is part of a long-established culture.
Addressing that might prove to be more than even one of today’s most influential change-makers can manage.
The intense backlash against Bezos illustrates the left’s intolerance towards divergent news outlets.
It’s already troubling enough that mass-media platforms like Fox News do not conform to the prevailing narrative, but losing even partial control of such a prestigious institution within mainstream media is far more concerning.
What comes next? Will MSNBC hire someone supportive of Trump? Will NPR advocate for natalism?
Any such alterations would be welcome, making the legacy media landscape less uniform and more engaging.
A seemingly overlooked aspect of Bezos’ memo is his genuine assertion that he is “of America and for America,” emphasizing that “a significant part of America’s success stems from freedom in economic and other spheres.”
Anyone dissenting from his views and wishing for a newspaper’s opinion section to reflect their perspective is encouraged to start or purchase their own publication.
In the meantime, let’s allow Jeff Bezos to act like the owner of the publication he possesses.
Twitter: @RichLowry
