In a surprising turn of events, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who also owns The Washington Post, has refused to permit the newspaper to run its traditional endorsement of a presidential candidate. This move has been justified by Bezos as an attempt to maintain unbiased media coverage.
Change in Endorsement Policy
Last Friday, the Post announced that it would not be endorsing a candidate in the highly anticipated upcoming election. Insiders reveal that an article endorsing Kamala Harris was crafted by two Post writers, but was subsequently rejected by the billionaire owner. Amidst substantial backlash, Bezos maintains his stance, indicating that this decision marks a change in policy for future elections.
In his op-ed, Bezos states, “ending [endorsements] is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.” He believes that this move is a significant step towards regaining reader trust and combating growing disillusionment with media outlets.
Addressing the Media’s Declining Credibility
Referencing Gallup’s data concerning decreasing faith in institutions, including the media, Bezos acknowledges that “our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.” However, he swiftly dismisses the victim mentality, insisting, “Complaining is not a strategy.”
Bezos further suggests that presidential endorsements contribute to perceived bias without necessarily influencing election outcomes. This claim is contested by research from Brown University, which suggests that such endorsements can sway voter preferences.
Unveiling the Timing and Context
The timing of this policy change, just two weeks before the election, has raised eyebrows. However, Bezos denies any ulterior motives or strategic planning, describing the move as a result of “inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.” He further asserts that there was “no quid pro quo of any kind at work here,” despite the coincidental meeting between Dave Limp, CEO at Bezos’ Blue Origin, and Republican candidate Donald Trump, on the day of the announcement.
Bezos’ Role as a Media Owner
Bezos concedes that his position as a billionaire owner of The Post may not be ideal due to potential conflicts of interest. He cites frequent meetings between officials at Amazon, Blue Origin, or other companies he’s invested in, and politicians. However, he firmly asserts that his decisions are principled and calls upon his track record at the Post to back this claim.
Impact on The Washington Post
The decision to withhold endorsement has sparked considerable backlash. The Post, which has a history of endorsing candidates since 1976, experienced significant internal and external conflict. Editor-at-large Robert Kagan resigned, three out ten people on the Post’s editorial board stepped down, and several journalists and columnists quit in response to the decision.
Moreover, as of Monday, over 200,000 people (approximately 8% of the outlet’s total subscriber base) canceled their subscriptions to the Post, according to sources.
Public Distrust and Wealth Disparity
America’s growing skepticism of the rich and the ballooning wealth inequality likely contribute to the media’s distrust. According to a Harris Poll survey, more than half of Americans (59%) reportedly believe billionaires create a more unfair society. Furthermore, 42% of Americans don’t think billionaires should be able to purchase businesses in the media sector.
As one of the wealthiest individuals globally, Bezos’ wealth isn’t just an elephant in the room; it’s essentially the entire room. “You can see my wealth and business interests as a bulwark against intimidation, or you can see them as a web of conflicting interests,” he wrote in his op-ed. It appears that some Americans view it as the latter.
