How jeff bezos missed the point of the ‘post’ | thearticle

Jeff Bezos’s recent decision to halt _ The Washington Post’s _ presidential endorsements has reignited debate about the media’s role in democracy. In a world where trust in journalism is

eroding, Bezos argues that stepping back from endorsements is a principled stand to avoid the perception of bias. But his decision feels incomplete, even evasive, as though he’s saying that

his vast wealth and influence make endorsing any candidate an impossible position.  This is a strange approach for an institution like _ The Post _ , which has made its reputation on

transparency, accountability, and speaking truth to power. Practically all its readers support Kamala Harris and they are appalled that the newspaper that brought down Richard Nixon will

remain neutral between the Vice President and Donald Trump. The fallout has been swift. Latest reports indicate that 250,000 subscribers have cancelled since Friday in protest, nearly 10 per

cent of the paper’s readership. This is hardly a minor reaction and is likely to explain why Bezos penned his first-ever opinion piece this week in response. He explains that his chief of

Blue Origin met with Trump that same day, chalking it up to a meeting “arranged in a hurry.” But the story doesn’t add up. This isn’t a case of grabbing coffee with a colleague; we’re

talking about a short-notice meeting with a former president, not something arranged on a whim. Bezos’s claim that he was unaware seems almost naive, or worse, dismissive, given his status

and the implications of such meetings. It all begins to look like a web of conflicting interests— _ The Post _ , Blue Origin, Amazon—all entangled, and all with an interest in keeping Trump

on side, or at the very least, hedging against the risk of a Trump return. Robert Kagan, a long-time journalist on the editorial board, suggests that Bezos cares less about how this affects

_ The Post _ and more about insulating Amazon against potential political fallout. _ The Post _ is a drop in the bucket compared to Amazon and Blue Origin, and these are the real prizes

Bezos wants to protect. This isn’t about journalistic integrity, then, but business strategy, with _ The Post _ caught in the middle. By pulling _ The Post _ out of endorsements, Bezos

appears to be sidestepping a key function of the Fourth Estate: the scrutiny and accountability that endorsement brings. The point of a newspaper’s endorsement isn’t to manipulate elections

but to evaluate candidates rigorously and impartially for its readers, setting a standard of accountability that reaches the highest levels of power. People expect this from _ The Post, _

not because it represents Bezos’s views, but because it reflects the journalistic principles of the paper’s editors and reporters. Stepping back risks letting Bezos’s own status dictate the

paper’s stance on democratic engagement—a dangerous move when the public expects a trusted paper to remain a voice of truth and transparency. Yuval Noah Harari, in _ Nexus _ , warns of a

“silicon curtain” dividing a world where information either empowers or controls. This curtain is thickening as big platforms and billionaires begin to exert influence in ways traditional

media cannot. Under Elon Musk’s ownership, Twitter (now X) is a cautionary tale in this regard. Musk’s impulsive style has transformed Twitter from a space of open dialogue into, as many

describe it, a cesspit of unchecked toxicity and misinformation. Musk’s “free speech” has cost Twitter its integrity, user base, and even advertiser support, as the platform becomes ever

more volatile. Bezos’s approach might be hands-off, but the decision to withdraw from endorsements suggests he, too, is letting his personal concerns shape his publication’s influence in

public discourse. The irony is that by trying to avoid bias, Bezos may have achieved the opposite. The story around the Trump meeting and the unexplained cancellations expose a lack of

journalistic awareness that’s surprising for someone of his stature. The optics are dismal: Bezos looks not only detached from the editorial judgment of his own publication but also

unprepared for how these decisions could affect _ The Post’s _ credibility. He claims he didn’t anticipate the backlash, which is in itself a staggering oversight, given the implications for

both _ The Post _ and his broader reputation. Endorsements are subjective, yes, but they are a considered, independent conclusion made by the journalists Bezos employs. It’s a promise that

the paper has taken the time to evaluate candidates and produce an informed view based on evidence and public interest. To simply withdraw from that responsibility is to weaken _ The Post’s

_ voice at a time when algorithm-driven platforms, influencers, and rogue operators have filled the void left by traditional media. By stepping back, Bezos risks suggesting that _ The Post _

is unwilling to engage fully in the democratic process, which readers rightly expect it to do. This retreat also hands a win to Trump, who has made no secret of his desire to demonstrate

how things will operate in a world where he calls the shots. It plays into a larger narrative—one that he wants on record—that billionaires will fall in line when he’s back in power. It’s an

unsettling scenario where political influence and media independence are increasingly at odds. In stepping back from endorsements, _ The Post _ risks losing the trust it has built over

decades as a credible source of journalistic independence. This isn’t just about a newspaper’s opinion on a candidate; it’s about maintaining a principled voice that keeps leaders

accountable. Harari’s “silicon curtain” is thickening, and as the world shifts under the weight of billionaires’ influence, journalism must do more than stand idly by—it must engage,

endorse, and scrutinise with integrity. Bezos’s decision feels like a missed opportunity to affirm the role of traditional media in a time when democracy needs principled voices most. A

MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need

your help to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation._