Bezos Addresses Non-Endorsement Decision
In a rare op-ed published on Monday evening, Jeff Bezos, the owner of the Washington Post, defended the newspaper’s decision not to endorse any presidential candidate for the upcoming November 5 election. He emphasized that this move aims to avoid the perception of bias through political endorsements. “Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election,” he stated. This article marks the first time Bezos has publicly discussed this “principled decision,” which he believes is the correct approach. He argued, “No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, ‘I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.’ None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.”
Bezos Reflects on Timing
Bezos expressed regret over the timing of the decision, wishing it had been made further from the election date. “I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it,” he wrote. He admitted, “That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.”
Denial of Trump Collusion Allegations
Bezos also addressed accusations from former Post editor Robert Kagan, who claimed he had collaborated with Donald Trump to cancel a planned endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris. “I would also like to be clear that no quid pro quo of any kind is at work here. Neither campaign nor candidate was consulted or informed at any level or in any way about this decision. It was made entirely internally,” he clarified.
Concerns Over Public Trust in Media
He further noted that the American public is increasingly turning away from traditional media and relying on unverified sources, stating that this shift could lead to misinformation and division. “We are seeing a growing trend of the public relying on off-the-cuff podcasts, inaccurate social media posts, and other unverified news sources, which can quickly spread misinformation and deepen divisions,” he wrote.
Impact of the Decision on the Washington Post
Subscription Cancellations and Internal Resignations
Following the decision not to endorse a candidate, the Washington Post faced significant backlash. Reports indicate that over 200,000 readers canceled their digital subscriptions. The publication also experienced internal turmoil, with some staff members in the opinion section resigning. This upheaval occurred just hours after three editorial board members left their positions due to the decision to withhold political support for Harris.
Response from Former Editors
Marty Baron, the former executive editor of the Post, criticized the non-endorsement as a cowardly move, stating, “To declare a moment of high principle, only 11 days before the election that is just highly suspect that is just not to be believed that this was a matter of principle at this point.”
Publisher Defends the Non-Endorsement
In defense of the non-endorsement, Post publisher Will Lewis stated that claims about Bezos’s influence were inaccurate. “Reporting around the role of The Washington Post owner and the decision not to publish a presidential endorsement has been inaccurate,” he asserted. “He was not sent, did not read and did not opine on any draft. As Publisher, I do not believe in presidential endorsements. We are an independent newspaper and should support our readers’ ability to make up their own minds.” Lewis described the decision as consistent with the Post’s long-standing values rather than a break from tradition.
Questions Surrounding the Decision
Timing of the Decision Draws Criticism
While some within the publication supported the non-endorsement, they questioned its timing. Critics argued that deciding against an endorsement right before the election put the newspaper in a difficult position. “Deciding that now, right before an election, puts us in a lose-lose position: cowards for caving, or whining over not endorsing Harris, which the Trump campaign is already trying to use to undermine us,” one source remarked.
Kagan’s Allegations of Censorship
Kagan, who resigned following the non-endorsement, alleged that Bezos had engaged in a deal with Trump to suppress the planned endorsement of Harris. While he provided no evidence to support his claims, he voiced concerns about potential censorship within the media. “There’s a lot of censorship slapping down the media with this purported alliance,” he said.
Speculations on Bezos’s Motivations
Kagan’s assertions aligned with Baron’s concerns regarding Bezos’s business interests, noting that Trump rewards allies and punishes adversaries. Baron speculated that Bezos’s diverse commercial ventures, including a stake in Amazon and his space company Blue Origin, might influence his decisions.
Bezos Addresses the Allegations
Despite these claims, Bezos denied any knowledge of a meeting between his company and Trump on the day of the non-endorsement announcement. “I knew it would provide ammunition to those who would like to frame this as anything other than a principled decision,” he concluded.
