Jeff Bezos: Americans don't trust the news media
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
On the other hand, there has always been a solid separation between the editorial page and the newsroom of every major paper, just look at WSJ. WSJ has not endorsed a presidential candidate since 1928, but it's no secret that their editorial board is robustly conservative. The Post is clearly a left of center publication and their editorial board has opinions that they should be free to share. In a world where Musk has turned Twitter into a pay-to-play MAGA playpen, I don't think there is anything wrong with a newspaper *opinion section* providing a clear, well-articulated endorsement of a candidate based on their merits.
If the reports are true and 8% of their paid subscribers have canceled since Friday (1), Bezos really screwed up quite badly here. And you have the Editorial Page Editor David Shipley throwing Bezos directly under the bus in that same report (2) so he had to come out and offer this ham-handed justification, but it is just a sign of a dumb decision.
I just can't believe he decided that lying to a bunch of reporters was a good idea.
1: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/28/nx-s1-5168416/washington-post... reports 200,000 cancellations since Friday, in an environment where the managing editor was touting 4,000 subscriber increases as a sign of progress.
2: "As recently as last week, according to a person present, Shipley said he sought to talk Bezos out of his decision. Shipley added, 'I failed.'" Ibid.
Mr. Bezos has told others involved with The Post that he is interested in expanding The Post’s audience among conservatives, according to a person familiar with the matter. He has appointed Mr. Lewis — a chief executive who previously worked at the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal — and has informed Mr. Lewis that he wants more conservative writers on the opinion section, the person said. -- https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/business/media/washington-post-presidential-endorsement.html
Again, announce this two years ago and it's a nothing burger and you could be working on that stated process (speaking for myself I don't think it likely to work, but it's at least a plan). Doing it now, in this way- after the editorial was already written- it's a big deal.
You may not be aware of the new profound respect Bezos is getting from Musk and friends on X. Deep testaments to Bezos' character are suddenly flying freely around. Those devotions are invisible to most people who aren't on the right. But they make an impression on the audience that Bezos says he is after.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4954591-trump-meets-bl...
I usually read the New York Times, but these past few weeks it's become almost unbearable with its preachiness toward why you, idiot reader, need to vote Kamala.
Fine, but at least provide some kind of counterpoint. Newspapers lose their prestige as "reporting the truth" when everything they report on represents one world view.
We don't question the New York Post or Daily Kos because they're supposed to be biased. The problem comes from a supposedly "unbiased" news org becoming more and more biased. This doesn't just show up in the opinion section, it's also what stories newspapers decide to cover.
Then Bezos steps up to the plate and single-handedly makes it worse than it was just yesterday.
Worse than being an absentee owner.
People have seen things like this before. Turning into an annoying micromanager at that scale reveals a deeper defect than from a lesser line manager.
You just can't paint a pretty picture now.
But a week before a major election? That’s ridiculous and inappropriate. Incompetence at best, malicious election interference at worst.
I’m really struggling to see how not doing something could ever qualify as interference.
The whole concept of journalists endorsing a candidate feels a lot closer to interference. Feels a bit sad that the editorial board can’t see that without being told by someone like Bezos.
Yes and no, but mostly no. The context is the problem. There's not a high enough wall between news and op-ed. When op-ed does what is supposed to be option and that simply reflects the "journalism" on the news side of the house, then both sides lose.
Put another way, before these entities dole out endorsements they need to work 100x harder to regain trust. What good is an enforcement if no one trusts you? FFS, the reviews on Amazon are more trustworthy than these self-proclaimed journalists.
The timing is extremely suspicious. Both Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong (LA Times) pushed this decision through suddenly at almost the same time. I don't believe the reasons given for making the decision suddenly now.
Trump has promised revenge if he wins. They caved under pressure or pivoted. If Trump gets an AG that does exactly what he wants, he will go after his enemies in courts, and other means. Bezos and other billionaires cave in when they face bigger power. Mohammed bin Salman hacked his phone and then killed his employer. Bezos prevented the release of the Jamal Khashoggi document in Amazon Prime so as not to anger MBS.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/26/us/los-angeles-times-endo...
My best guess is that she tried to use a brief spurt of interest in her family to get attention for a cause she was invested in, but since it was a lie no one else backed her up.
Also, he has access to the best trainers in the world, do you think that he needs to take steroids as much as a normal person does?
You can't dispute that he is one of the most intelligent persons on the last few decades, what's the sense of talking about steroids and political affiliation?
These might all be general signals for someone who is trustworthy, but proxies are not the real thing.
Trust that is not earned, is not trust at all.
Blue Origin executives briefly met with Trump on the same day the non-endorsement was announced. But was that some kind of quid pro quo or was it just a coincidence? Did they or Trump know about WaPo’s non-endorsement at the time they arranged the meeting? Did it factor into either side’s decision to meet?
Blue Origin and WaPo are completely separate businesses with a common owner. I wouldn’t expect them to coordinate with each other, with rare exceptions-the most likely exception would be logistical issues with their common owner’s schedule/transportation/security/etc. I doubt Blue executives knew about the WaPo announcement beforehand, and if they’d already planned to meet with Trump that day, why would they have thought it a reason to change their plans? They’ve probably met with Harris too, or at least would like to if she is willing. It is in their best interest to hedge their bets to maximise the odds of a positive relationship with the White House no matter who wins.
I think it is completely within the bounds of the reasonably possible that he did.
But I don’t think anyone has hard evidence he did, just suspicions. Sometimes, the devious answer is the correct one; other times, the real situation is more innocent and it just looks devious. Given the paucity of evidence, I think agnosticism is the most rational position.
Oh dearie dear, the trials and tribulations of 3rd wealthiest person in the world.
> I once wrote that The Post is a “complexifier” for me. It is, but it turns out I’m also a complexifier for The Post.
The only credible response to this would be, "Therefore, I'm going to sell The Post."
To whom? Any other individual or organization with sufficient assets to make the purchase would also have sufficient assets to complexify and be complexified by the Post.
I don't think Bezos comes out of this very well frankly.