My money's on Jeff - he's got something up his sleeve here.
I regard earning money in a productive fashion and without the use of force to be one of the greatest things a person can do. That's my belief, and I don't force anybody else to agree with me.
There are radically cheaper ways to have influence. He could set up a PAC, seed it with $50 million, and directly buy whatever influence he needs.
The thing about buying one of the few really national papers and slanting its coverage: your competitors will have a field day and it won't be long before your paper is a joke that nobody takes seriously.
I don't think he has much room to abuse this for influence.
Washington doesn't have room for another joke of a paper that nobody takes seriously[1]!
Major newspapers have been systemically biased for decades but many people still take them seriously.
Calling people and starting a PAC with a transparent agenda is not nearly as powerful as controlling one of the few trusted, prestigious political news outlets left. You can influence operations without directly interfering in the newsroom, and you can do so while appearing to give the paper autonomy. The fact that flagrant, visible abuse would be self-defeating doesn't really tell us anything.
I guess I'd ask this: if the newspaper is not valuable for its influence, why buy it at all? It will not make him money, he is not bored. Even if he is buying it to keep it out of other hands, that remains an agenda and an active use of influence.