A WashPost Apology from Jeff Bezos

[WyattEarp]

I didn't initially know what to make of this letter from Jeff Bezos regarding the Washington Post. Clearly, he's explaining why the Washington Post is not endorsing a Presidential candidate. He's also saying the Washington Post has to become more credible and trustworthy. A cynical view is that he realizes his newspaper is working too hard to alienate a lot of his customers.

"What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one. Eugene Meyer, publisher of The Washington Post from 1933 to 1946, thought the same, and he was right. By itself, declining to endorse presidential candidates is not enough to move us very far up the trust scale, but it’s a meaningful step in the right direction. I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it. That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy."

"Lack of credibility isn’t unique to The Post. Our brethren newspapers have the same issue. And it’s a problem not only for media, but also for the nation. Many people are turning to off-the-cuff podcasts, inaccurate social media posts and other unverified news sources, which can quickly spread misinformation and deepen divisions. The Washington Post and the New York Times win prizes, but increasingly we talk only to a certain elite. More and more, we talk to ourselves."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/28/jeff-bezos-washington-post-trust/

 

[Skoob]

I didn't initially know what to make of this letter from Jeff Bezos regarding the Washington Post. Clearly, he's explaining why the Washington Post is not endorsing a Presidential candidate. He's also saying the Washington Post has to become more credible and trustworthy. A cynical view is that he realizes his newspaper is working too hard to alienate a lot of his customers.

"What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one. Eugene Meyer, publisher of The Washington Post from 1933 to 1946, thought the same, and he was right. By itself, declining to endorse presidential candidates is not enough to move us very far up the trust scale, but it’s a meaningful step in the right direction. I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it. That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy."

"Lack of credibility isn’t unique to The Post. Our brethren newspapers have the same issue. And it’s a problem not only for media, but also for the nation. Many people are turning to off-the-cuff podcasts, inaccurate social media posts and other unverified news sources, which can quickly spread misinformation and deepen divisions. The Washington Post and the New York Times win prizes, but increasingly we talk only to a certain elite. More and more, we talk to ourselves."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/28/jeff-bezos-washington-post-trust/

I'm not sure when news reporting became political endorsement.

Organizations who's responsibility is to report on the news as factual, trustworthy information, have become honey pots of skewed info to lure readers looking to leverage their own confirmation bias.

 

[WyattEarp]

I'm not sure when news reporting became political endorsement.

Organizations who's responsibility is to report on the news as factual, trustworthy information, have become honey pots of skewed info to lure readers looking to leverage their own confirmation bias.

Newspapers endorsing candidates has a long tradition in the U.S. It was always considered to be behind the editorial wall. Most of the time I don't think they swayed voters all that much. Big cities generally had Democratic papers and Republican newspapers. The newspapers were fairly good at hurting the most egregious candidates by withholding endorsements in conflict with the paper's party bias. Hence, if you were a Democratic candidate and the Democratic paper withheld an endorsement or worse endorsed the Republican.......you get the picture.

Newspaper endorsements can be considered anachronistic. Perhaps a vain attempt by editors to appear they have political influence in today's environment.

Most people don't get their news from newspapers. The Cable TV news networks offer almost 24/7 political commentary. Everyone knows where these news networks and their talking heads stand on politics without the need for dramatic endorsements.

 

[Frankfooter]

200,000 subscribers lost.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1850990463412826241

 

[Valcazar]

I didn't initially know what to make of this letter from Jeff Bezos regarding the Washington Post. Clearly, he's explaining why the Washington Post is not endorsing a Presidential candidate. He's also saying the Washington Post has to become more credible and trustworthy. A cynical view is that he realizes his newspaper is working too hard to alienate a lot of his customers.

What do you make of it now?
(You said you didn't initially know, so that implies you do know what you make of it now.)

 

[WyattEarp]

What do you make of it now?
(You said you didn't initially know, so that implies you do know what you make of it now.)

Oh Bezo's just doing damage control on his decision to refrain from endorsing a candidate. Damage control with the Left and damage control with the WaPo staff. Newspaper endorsements probably have little affect on the election outcome. However, people like to see their candidate receiving distinction. Newspaper staffs appear to relish the opportunity to endorse as well.

If I were Bezos, I would have never bought the Washington Post. He bought himself a lot of headaches and a money losing enterprise. I personally don't think it makes sense for high-profile businessmen to get anywhere near the political arena. Someone is not going to be happy with your choices.

 

[Valcazar]

Oh Bezo's just doing damage control on his decision to refrain from endorsing a candidate. Damage control with the Left and damage control with the WaPo staff.

Agreed, although I think "Damage Control with his subscribers" is the key one.

Newspaper endorsements probably have little affect on the election outcome. However, people like to see their candidate receiving distinction. Newspaper staffs appear to relish the opportunity to endorse as well.

I think there is a very principled argument that can be made for no longer doing endorsements.
11 days out and voting down your own staff to do it isn't the way to make that argument.

If someone wants to announce in December of this year that policy going forward isn't to endorse, I would expect it to not get nearly as much pushback.

If I were Bezos, I would have never bought the Washington Post. He bought himself a lot of headaches and a money losing enterprise. I personally don't think it makes sense for high-profile businessmen to get anywhere near the political arena. Someone is not going to be happy with your choices.

Him dumping it probably just puts it in vulture capital people who run it into the ground.
Owning big media has been a thing rich people like to do for ages.
I don't think it is ideal, but I don't really see a good way to stop it.