close
close

Washington Post readers don’t believe Jeff Bezos’ excuses

Washington Post readers don’t believe Jeff Bezos’ excuses

Washington Post readers flocked to read Jeff Bezos’ book. Essay this week defending his decision to prevent his editorial board from endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris. They wanted to see his explanation of the inexplicable, to understand why he was shining the neon light in the newsroom of the newspaper whose banner reads “Democracy Dies in the Dark.” Predictably, Bezos’ defense failed more miserably than the Union Army’s at Fort Sumter in 1861.

The Post won’t stop bleeding editors and subscribers dry with the transparent associations of illogical and flawed analogies that Bezos offers. Here are four of the more obvious errors in his essay.

“You don’t trust the media”

The basic idea was clear from the initial reliance on excessive generality: distrust of the media is now greater than ever, and Bezos swears that the recommendations of a respected newspaper are part of the problem. “Endorsements,” Bezos wrote, “create a perception of…” . . Non-independence.”

Please.

Let’s import a dose of reality. Bezos is essentially arguing that because of distrust of the media, the newspaper will not support the candidate running against the man who has done more than any other person in American history to inspire distrust of the media. Based on this circular reasoning, the billionaire essentially argues: “The way we restore the public perception of journalistic independence is for the owner of the newspaper to step in and overturn the wise and experienced journalist’s independent judgment on the editorial. “ Plank.

Does the second richest man in the world miss the richness of irony? Probably not. But he seems to think we will.

He is wrong and there is evidence. Post readers who have canceled their subscriptions are putting their money where their mouth is. She transferred their dollars – in the millions – from the Post to outlets like The Guardian and The Atlantic, whose owners let their journalists do their jobs unhindered. So much for discerning readers indiscriminately distrusting the entire media ecosystem.

It is a matter of life or death for our constitutional republic. The generals, the served Trump agree that he “thoroughly fascist.” Trump and his allies have proven it to him again repeat the fascist rally at Madison Square Garden in 1939.

So the way to move the Postal Service up the trust scale is to not support the candidate who attacked Trump’s authoritarianism, the Democratic Party candidate who vows to uphold the Constitution?

Suppose that before the Weimar Republic elections in 1932, the editor of Der Spiegel had said: “We will move our newspaper up the trust scale by not supporting the parties that support a democratic Germany and reject Hitler’s Nazis.” That would not have informed readers shouting from the rooftops that Der Spiegel had regained their trust. Nor the specious appeals to us from a publisher based on both sides of an existential choice.

Endorsements do not help tip the scales in presidential elections.

“No undecided voters in Pennsylvania,” Bezos said wrote“will say, ‘I agree with Newspaper A’s support.’ Nobody.”

Maybe not. But there is a shameful cynicism behind it.Fallacy of the excluded middle.” It is not the case that the quality seal of a newspaper editorial team alone convinces citizens; It is the justification of a recommendation that gets them there. Recommendations are part of a stream of beliefs based on belief in reason.

If a publisher doesn’t believe in the persuasive power of an editorial page – in conjunction with several other sources – then why do editorial pages exist? Why own a newspaper?

The only problem is the timing

Bezos admits that the Post made a mistake – not by being grandiose and blocking a recommendation, but rather by doing it so late. But when was a good time? In June? In January? In 2022? In each of these moments it was clear that newspaper recommendations do not determine the presidential election. It was also clear that Trump would be (or already was) the Republican presidential nominee. At any of these times, an announcement from the Post Office that it would not support them – preceding that of the Los Angeles Times – would have sparked howls of outrage.

The truth is: As the election approaches, someone like Bezos will have to grapple with the possibility that Trump could win and target a wealthy publisher and his companies in retaliation. As a historian, it was Timothy Snyder say loud and clearthis is nothing more than “obedience in advance,” handing over our power to an authoritarian he needs to take control.


Want a daily digest of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletterCrash course.


As Bezos wrote When it comes to blaming others for dwindling trust in the media, “complaining is not a strategy.” Nor is timing blamed.

No question of consideration.

Bezos claimed he did not make a deal with Trump: “Neither the campaign nor the candidate were consulted or informed in any way about this decision.”

How innocent does he think we are in the way the world works? No consultations were required. Bezos sees Elon Musk hug and be hugged from Trump. Musk is the owner of SpaceX, rival from Bezos’ Blue Origin. Last year it spent $2 billion worth of lobbying for government contracts. Trump has said he will make Musk do it Overseer of “Efficiency of Government.”

Bezos didn’t get where he is by being stupid. In sophisticated business transactions, corrupt businesses rarely need words. Bezos sees the threat to his prized missile company and asks himself, “What can I do about it?” The question of how to send an unspoken signal to Trump is worthy.

To this statement From Bezos, we can agree: “Now more than ever, the world needs a credible, trustworthy and independent voice?” But the way to get there is not through obviously false defenses transparent cowardice. The only basis for trust is the truth. Jeff Bezos’ defense failed it and the shining newspaper he owns.