Serious question: how so? I was really worried when I heard he had bought WaPo, however it seems like he hasn't touched the editorial side at all. I haven't seen a change. However, the business and tech sides have improved, which is good news.

He has touched the editorial side. Bezos personally ordered the Washington Post to cover as many stories as possible on Trump and the Post dedicated 20 full time editors to him at his direction. I don't think Bezos has told reporters to change the words write, but he's definitely directed what reporters should write about.

By dedicating so many resources to Trump and the gossip surrounding him, it leaves less resources to cover other, actually important issues. It's made a huge change in the direction of the paper. There's much more about Trump now and less on other important topics. I'm surprised you didn't notice it.

> Bezos personally ordered the Washington Post to cover as many stories as possible on Trump and the Post dedicated 20 full time editors to him at his direction.

Evidence?

Trumps rise was a huge in this country. A paper is going to increase its coverage of a growing story (of that importance as a potential president). Can you provide some more of Bezos singling out Trump for more coverage than a paper would have?

> I'm surprised you didn't notice it.

Sorry, they were probably too busy reading about The Pentagon Papers, The Watergate Burglary, Iran/Contra, Monica Lewinsky, WMDs, etc. to notice that The Post had taken a new interest in reporting on The Whitehouse.

The change in coverage occurred before Trump was president, when he was still a candidate competing for the 2016 Republican nomination.

This wasn't just 'a new interest in reporting on The Whitehouse'.

I don't know that that makes the Post any different from other news sources.

Uh, he bought WaPo in 2013. Trump began running in 2015. How could you possibly know what would have happened without Bezos? NYT wasn't bought by Bezos, and currently has a similar number of Trump articles.

That being said, one bad thing about Bezos owning WaPo is that Trump can dismiss it as "Bezo's / Amazon's WaPo".

I'm addressing this point. Earlier you stated

> it seems like he hasn't touched the editorial side at all

which on the surface looks true, but under the surface isn't. Bezos has been directing editorial coverage behind the scenes at WaPo. I belive this is what rufus_2 is referring to as 'despicable'. That you said you haven't noticed it makes it more worrying.

While additional Trump coverage may have happened without Bezos interfering, and I agree this would happen naturally, the issue here is that the changes happened at the request of Bezos. Bezos did interfere on the editorial side and did direct the paper to cover more of certain stories and less of others.

Regarding the NYT, its articles regarding Trump are noticeably more tame and fewer in number.

The New York Times began outright calling Trump's statements false in their articles. They were anything but complimentary.