Right. If this decision had been made and announced two years ago, no one cares. But according to published reports, the Editorial Board actually wrote up an endorsement and then the owner decided to spike it at the last minute- that's a big huge deal! This whole thing is just really poorly handled on Bezos part.

If the reports are true and 8% of their paid subscribers have canceled since Friday (1), Bezos really screwed up quite badly here. And you have the Editorial Page Editor David Shipley throwing Bezos directly under the bus in that same report (2) so he had to come out and offer this ham-handed justification, but it is just a sign of a dumb decision.

I just can't believe he decided that lying to a bunch of reporters was a good idea.

1: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/28/nx-s1-5168416/washington-post... reports 200,000 cancellations since Friday, in an environment where the managing editor was touting 4,000 subscriber increases as a sign of progress.

2: "As recently as last week, according to a person present, Shipley said he sought to talk Bezos out of his decision. Shipley added, 'I failed.'" Ibid.

  Mr. Bezos has told others involved with The Post that he is interested in expanding The Post’s audience among conservatives, according to a person familiar with the matter. He has appointed Mr. Lewis — a chief executive who previously worked at the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal — and has informed Mr. Lewis that he wants more conservative writers on the opinion section, the person said. -- https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/business/media/washington-post-presidential-endorsement.html

He is making a serious play to capture an audience from the other half of the country. There is no way to do that without losing a painful share of his current reach.

The false story of the frog in the pot applies here: if you want to make a change like that it has to be slow and steady, at an imperceptible pace. Doing something big and obvious destroys your pivot. You've lost trust with your existing customer base with out actually getting anything from your new, intended customer base.

Again, announce this two years ago and it's a nothing burger and you could be working on that stated process (speaking for myself I don't think it likely to work, but it's at least a plan). Doing it now, in this way- after the editorial was already written- it's a big deal.

> You've lost trust with your existing customer base with out actually getting anything from your new, intended customer base.

You may not be aware of the new profound respect Bezos is getting from Musk and friends on X. Deep testaments to Bezos' character are suddenly flying freely around. Those devotions are invisible to most people who aren't on the right. But they make an impression on the audience that Bezos says he is after.

That may be true for Bezos himself- but do you think that respect and affirmation will trickle down to the Washington Post and net them new subscribers? I'm extremely skeptical. This is not the first time someone has tried this pivot, e.g. the Post's old stablemate Newsweek, and it's not an easy thing to do.

How about this report to spice things up: Blue Origin executives meeting up with Trump the day the endorsement cancellation was announced?

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4954591-trump-meets-bl...

Bezos wants diverse opinions in the Washington Post op-ed section. He wants more than just progressive liberal viewpoints always being there, right at the top of the front page. Which I think is correct.

I usually read the New York Times, but these past few weeks it's become almost unbearable with its preachiness toward why you, idiot reader, need to vote Kamala.

Fine, but at least provide some kind of counterpoint. Newspapers lose their prestige as "reporting the truth" when everything they report on represents one world view.

We don't question the New York Post or Daily Kos because they're supposed to be biased. The problem comes from a supposedly "unbiased" news org becoming more and more biased. This doesn't just show up in the opinion section, it's also what stories newspapers decide to cover.

I agree in principle that I don’t mind newspapers not endorsing. Fine, make an academic argument about it.

But a week before a major election? That’s ridiculous and inappropriate. Incompetence at best, malicious election interference at worst.

And then maybe don't have your government-dependent aerospace company immediately call up the guy who you obviously just helped: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4954591-trump-meets-bl...

Are you suggesting that a newspaper making an endorsement is "malicious election interference", or that there was "malicious election interference" involved in them deciding not to publish the endorsement?

No. I’m implying BEZOS overriding his independent editorial board’s position a week before an election is malicious election interference.

You’re saying that Bezos telling the editorial board to not endorse is election interference?

I’m really struggling to see how not doing something could ever qualify as interference.

The whole concept of journalists endorsing a candidate feels a lot closer to interference. Feels a bit sad that the editorial board can’t see that without being told by someone like Bezos.

>trust in news organizations is at all-time lows.

Then Bezos steps up to the plate and single-handedly makes it worse than it was just yesterday.

Worse than being an absentee owner.

People have seen things like this before. Turning into an annoying micromanager at that scale reveals a deeper defect than from a lesser line manager.

You just can't paint a pretty picture now.

Not just an absentee, he promised not to interfere when he purchased it.

It would have been OK to decide to forbid endorsements a year earlier or just after the elections.

The timing is extremely suspicious. Both Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong (LA Times) pushed this decision through suddenly at almost the same time. I don't believe the reasons given for making the decision suddenly now.

Trump has promised revenge if he wins. They caved under pressure or pivoted. If Trump gets an AG that does exactly what he wants, he will go after his enemies in courts, and other means. Bezos and other billionaires cave in when they face bigger power. Mohammed bin Salman hacked his phone and then killed his employer. Bezos prevented the release of the Jamal Khashoggi document in Amazon Prime so as not to anger MBS.

Ostensibly, the LA Times owner's daughter claims that the decision not to endorse is tied to the Biden-Harris administrations stance on Gaza. Not sure whether to take that at face value or just a cop-out.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/26/us/los-angeles-times-endo...

The same article notes that the newspaper itself and also the people who resigned from the paper over this say it has nothing to do with Gaza and his daughter was involved in none of the conversations about this.

My best guess is that she tried to use a brief spurt of interest in her family to get attention for a cause she was invested in, but since it was a lie no one else backed her up.

> I don't think there is anything wrong with a newspaper opinion section providing a clear, well-articulated endorsement of a candidate based on their merits.

Yes and no, but mostly no. The context is the problem. There's not a high enough wall between news and op-ed. When op-ed does what is supposed to be option and that simply reflects the "journalism" on the news side of the house, then both sides lose.

Put another way, before these entities dole out endorsements they need to work 100x harder to regain trust. What good is an enforcement if no one trusts you? FFS, the reviews on Amazon are more trustworthy than these self-proclaimed journalists.