Jeff Bezos' revamp of 'Washington Post' opinions leads editor to quit

well, all these tariffs are a major regression away from free markets. Although somehow I doubt this is what Bezos has in mind.

Free markets are under attack in all kinds of different dimensions by the ruling president and legislature: tariffs, restricting dock automation, etc.

There is a set of values that are common among news organizations. If you don't share a value, then of course you wouldn't think it's important enough for a newspaper to defend. That doesn't mean it's not important to those who do share the value.

25% tarrifs on Europe certainly isn't an example of free markets.

I mean, actually, I would argue that free markets in America are in desperate need of defense, but probably not the kind that Jeff Bezos would provide.

Specifically away from business consolidations and monopolistic tactics. The very kind of thing that may lead to something like the breakup of say Amazon.

They aren't free. Noticed all the oligopolies around lately?

There are plenty of people who defend free markets...but both political parties are increasingly against them.

Biden and Harris both campaigned on price controls. Trump is all in on tariffs.

One news organization, at least, is brave enough to deliver this vision:

https://theonion.com/opinion/point-counterpoint/

This is the general idea of the Tangle newsletter [1]. They pick a topic from the news and provide "What the Right is saying" and "What the Left is saying" about the topic.

[1] https://www.readtangle.com/

USA Today has had something like this for a long while [1], though whether they find the strongest voices on each side is debatable.

[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/26/why-does-u...

Perhaps. It can also produce or reinforce a false balance.

We don't have too many op eds defending the flat earth theory anymore. Sadly I've seen too many friends fall down such rabbit holes.

Newspapers generally run opinion pieces from an array of viewpoints.

They give the writers full freedom, which makes it hard to get strict point counterpoint pieces like that. And many editors are averse to a simple "two sides" narrative.

I like the idea, I think they would need to be staggered though, Author A writes an article giving their best case supporting X, a week later Author B writes a rebuttal to author A (let's assume it's well thought out and civil because we can still dream) in a follow up article, this continues for as long as it's an interesting conversation. Probably a hard sell to the modern audience and attention span, but I would read it as long as they both were substantive and well-reasoned.

Pro/Con op-eds is one name this goes by, and used to be incredibly common.

I'm from GenX and at one time that's what the opinion section in newspapers were like.

Is it basically like Elon announcing he's a Republican just before the rape allegations against him were made public, so he could claim they were just a response to him becoming a Republican?

Nothing in the story suggests anything about editorial control.

He absolutely has the right. It destroys the credibility of the paper, but he bought it so he can break it.

Generally, newspaper publishers leave editorial decisions to editors, i.e. people who have decades of experience rather than zero experience. So while it's not his obligation, it's definitely his right.

And the former editor has the right to not help him destroy what little remains of the newspaper industry.

This is explicitly not about the editorial direction, but about op-eds, which are opinion pieces outside the editorial line. Of course a newspaper has largely the right to publish whatever it likes, but this new policy just increases the filter bubble and intellectual isolation, regardless of the editorial line.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed

I think you're confusing "has the right to" with "has the right to without criticism or consequence."

Bezos didn't start the Washington Post. He used his insane wealth to steal an established institution. Same with Elon and Twitter. It is the unchecked power of insane wealth that is tearing this country apart.

> You can share your opinion... as long as it's the correct opinion :)

That's obviously true of every newspaper in existence. No employee is allowed to publish any opinion that goes against their employers' wishes.

From: https://nypost.com/2024/05/30/media/ex-new-york-times-report...

Two people were fired at the NYT after publishing a perfectly reasonable op-ed.

And from: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10170541/Bari-Weiss...

"In the book, Bowles tells the stories she wasn’t allowed to tell at the [New York] Times: She writes, for example, about Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood, which transformed into a police-free “autonomous zone,” or CHAZ, Antifa protests, and the experience of attending an anti-racism training called “The Toxic Trends of Whiteness.”"

Your comment in a nutshell:

> Am I out of touch? No, it's the progressives who are wrong!

Why do you talk about these things like you "can't." You obviously can. You made the post. Losing karma is engagement with your post.

I would like to think the truly right-wing-- in it's best sense-- attitude would be an appreciation for the ability to openly voice these opinions and the ability for people to openly disagree with you. If you're getting downvoted by individuals for your criticism of a private opera house's policies, that's a win for personal liberties, not an indictment of them.

I don't mean to strawman, but it seems like you're advocating for the exact opposite of what you claim. You want an authority to step in and tell these people downvoting you that they can't have their opinions? You want your viewpoints to have a certain number of mandated agreements?

With your sample size of n=1 you came to the wrong conclusion about HN moderation. To then expand that experience to justify tearing society apart is quite the reach.

I am struggling to see the connection between the body of your post and the WP's editorial changes, but to engage with your post as a leftist for a moment:

- When you say you were criticizing HSR and got downvoted for it, is it because you were promoting Elon or Hyperloop in the same post? Were you arguing against public transit? I can't really imagine a good reason to downvote a post just for basic criticism, but I can imagine people seeing something that smells like Elon boosterism and downvoting that. (I don't, personally.)

- Criticizing public school closures without having a solid foundation behind the argument is probably a good way to earn a downvote from people who value human lives over schools staying open. During the early days, COVID was killing a lot of people. You can argue over where we should have struck the balance there, and there's data to support that we did it incorrectly. But people who remember losing loved ones to COVID will naturally get heated over 'we did too much'-type takes so I can understand how you'd catch downvotes for that.

- ID requirements for things with ticketing are pretty boring and commonplace? I can't remember the last time ID wasn't required for a ticketed event I went to, though it's been years now thanks to COVID. So what you've described here - interpreted generously - would have come across as an attempt to complain about vaccination requirements being clumsily masked by throwing in the ID requirement. I don't know the actual tone and content of the post though.

I appreciate your balanced view. It reminds me of “I disagree with your opinion, but will defend your right to share it” (paraphrased)

It's always annoyed me and in fact Jon Stewart made fun of it in an interview with Ezra Klein of... the NY Times.

Democracy is not a reverse vampire that sleeps in a tanning bed. It's perfectly fine with darkness. Democracy Dies in Ignorance would be a more objective & rational motto, even if it is a bit preening and hysterical. Democracy Thrives In Knowledge is a bit more upbeat and gets the point across. Or even Democracy Compels Free Speech which Bezos would probably endorse in spite of his self-contradictory behavior here.

(Yes, he did make a bad call.)

what do you mean by democracy here and what's the effect you think moderation of the opinion section will have?

the writers will be better off on substack, and the owners have a newspaper where they publish the opinions they like. news remains unchanged.

the name "Washington Post" to historians is of a newspaper that spent decades advancing racism. it didn't serve more balanced news journalism until nearly 100 years after it was founded. this is not some fine and well storied institution.

their tag line of "Democracy Dies in Darkness" is from the first Trump era and is a call back to watergate era investigative reporting. it has nothing to do with opinion articles.

It was a call to arms.

It almost did but Bezos is rescuing it from the other extreme. Remains to be seen if he leaves it in the center or takes it to an opposite extreme. Shame few who’re complaining now complained when it became a one sided mouthpiece for the leftist establishment. But now they is big mad he be aligning it with his politics.