The iWashington Post owner Jeff Bezos yesterday Monday defended the decision of the newspaper not to support any of the candidates for the US presidential election calling it a “principle decision”, following reports that more than 200,000 people had canceled their online subscription.
The decision was “completely made internally,” Bezos explained in an opinion piece published late yesterday, stressing that he is “not driven” by personal interests when it comes to the newspaper’s decisions.
According to him, “you can consider my wealth and business interests as a bulwark against bullying, or you can consider it a conflict of interest,” the billionaire explained.
“I assure you that my views here are in fact positions of principle, and I believe that my record as owner of the Post since 2013 supports that view,” Bezos added.
The Washington Post’s decision blocked an endorsement of Democratic candidate Kamala Harris, US National Public Radio reported, and many people in messages on the paper’s website criticized Bezos, founder of Amazon.com and space company Blue Origin.
In his op-ed Bezos assessed that “most people believe the media is biased” and that both the Washington Post and other newspapers need to strengthen their credibility.
None of the candidates were informed or asked about the decision, Bezos said, explaining that he was not compensated. He added that there was no connection between the Post’s decision — which was announced Friday — and the meeting that Dave Lieb, Blue Origin’s chairman and CEO, had with Republican candidate Donald Trump the same day.
“Supporting presidential candidates does not change the outcome of the election,” the billionaire estimated. “What supporting a presidential candidate actually does is create a sense of bias. A sense of non-independence. Terminating them is a principled decision and it is the right one,” he explained.
The cancellations reached about 8 percent of the paper’s 2.5 million subscribers — either online or in print — yesterday, NPR reported, adding that several Washington Post columnists resigned to protest the decision.
The paper’s editor-in-chief William Lewis announced Friday that the Washington Post will not endorse any candidate in this presidential election or the next.
“We know that this decision will be interpreted in different ways, that it will be seen as a tacit support for one of the candidates or as a rejection of the other, or as an avoidance of our responsibilities. It is inevitable. We don’t take that view,” Lewis said.
“We are returning to our roots of not supporting presidential candidates,” he stressed.
“The Washington Post’s decision not to endorse either candidate in the presidential election is a tragic mistake,” 20 columnists wrote in an opinion piece on the paper’s website.
The Washington Post has endorsed Democratic presidential candidates in the 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020 presidential elections.
Source: RES-MPE
#Jeff #Bezos #defended #Washington #Posts #decision #endorse #candidate
**Interview with Media Analyst Sarah Thompson on the Fallout from The Washington Post’s Endorsement Decision**
**Host:** Welcome back to the show. Today, we’re discussing the recent controversy surrounding The Washington Post and its owner Jeff Bezos’s decision not to endorse any candidate in the upcoming U.S. presidential election. We’re joined by media analyst Sarah Thompson. Sarah, thank you for being here.
**Sarah:** Thank you for having me!
**Host:** Let’s dive right in. Jeff Bezos has described the decision as a “principle decision” and has stated that it was made internally. What impact do you think this has had on the relationship between readers and the newspaper?
**Sarah:** It’s significant. By choosing not to endorse a candidate, especially at such a critical time, Bezos has raised questions around the independence of the editorial board. Many readers value endorsements; they see them as a way for news outlets to guide civic engagement. The backlash — with over 200,000 cancellations — suggests that a substantial number of subscribers felt betrayed or that their values weren’t reflected by this decision.
**Host:** Bezos defended himself by saying he’s not influenced by personal interests. Do you think that claim is convincing, given his profile as one of the world’s richest individuals?
**Sarah:** That’s a complicated issue. On one hand, he appears to be trying to position himself as someone above the fray — a protector of journalistic integrity. On the other hand, his wealth and business ties can naturally raise suspicions about potential conflicts of interest. It’s a double-edged sword; some might see him as a bulwark against media bias, while others feel that his decisions are yet another example of how media can be influenced by powerful individuals.
**Host:** The editorial board had reportedly drafted an endorsement for Kamala Harris before this decision. What does this say about the internal dynamics at The Washington Post?
**Sarah:** It highlights serious tensions within the organization. When a draft is prepared and then the endorsement is squashed, it creates a rift between editorial ambitions and ownership influence. This kind of conflict can lead to lowered morale among journalists and could also impact the overall credibility of the publication.
**Host:** Bezos mentioned that the belief in media bias is prevalent and that it’s crucial for newspapers to strengthen their credibility. How can The Washington Post go about doing that now, given the current situation?
**Sarah:** They need to double down on transparency and accountability. The Post should clarify its editorial policies and possibly consider more community engagement, allowing readers to have a voice in discussions about content and direction. Openness about the decision-making process and inviting reader feedback could help rebuild trust.
**Host:** Great insights, Sarah. Lastly, what do you think this means for the future of media endorsements in general?
**Sarah:** It could lead to a reconsideration of the role of endorsements in the media landscape. As audiences demand more transparency and less perceived bias, we might see a shift toward more independent editorial voices or even more cautious approaches to endorsements in the future. The effectiveness of endorsements may indeed come under scrutiny as more people question their influence and the motivations behind them.
**Host:** Thank you, Sarah, for sharing your perspective. This is an unfolding story that many will be watching closely.
**Sarah:** Thank you for having me!
