Jeff Bezos Announces Resignation of Washington Post Opinion Editor Over New Editorial Mandate in Stunning Statement
Jeff Bezos Announces Resignation of Washington Post Opinion Editor Over New Editorial Mandate in Stunning Statement
Jeff Bezos, the billionaire founder of Amazon and owner of The Washington Post, announced that he would be taking the storied newspaper in a new direction.
I offered David Shipley, whom I greatly admire, the opportunity to lead this new chapter. I suggested to him that if the answer wasn’t “hell yes,” then it had to be “no.” After careful consideration, David decided to step away.
That is termination, not resignation.
Fucking scumbag.
Y’all, stop buying shit from Amazon, completely. That’s where you start.
Bezos has money because we continue to give it to him. So, the first order of business is to simply stop spending money with him.
As in, forever.
Find an alternative vendor, or even schlep on down to a physical store if you need to.
There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views.
That's exactly what a journalistic organisation is meant to do Jeff, especially now when the world is increasingly being filled with mouthpieces that regurgitate what their owners want them to.
An organisation that puts out only one opinion, or is only allowed to put out one opinion, is nothing more than a mouthpiece.
Its a shame to see the Post becoming just another mouthpiece.
"Democracy dies in Darkness"
-Washington Post
"Nah, I knifed that bitch in the back in broad daylight."
-Jeff Bezos
Interestingly, the Post and the NYT both lean heavily on their Opinion sections to pretend they're not licking boots. Now the Post won't have that option.
He's basically making the exact same argument as Faux News did, 30 years or more after anyone reasonable realized that they were blatantly lying.
...in Stunning Statement
I’m writing to let you know about a change coming to our opinion pages.
We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.
There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job.
I am of America and for America, and proud to be so. Our country did not get here by being typical. And a big part of America’s success has been freedom in the economic realm and everywhere else. Freedom is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical — it drives creativity, invention, and prosperity.
I offered David Shipley, whom I greatly admire, the opportunity to lead this new chapter. I suggested to him that if the answer wasn’t “hell yes,” then it had to be “no.” After careful consideration, David decided to step away. This is a significant shift, it won’t be easy, and it will require 100% commitment — I respect his decision. We’ll be searching for a new Opinion Editor to own this new direction.
I’m confident that free markets and personal liberties are right for America. I also believe these viewpoints are underserved in the current market of ideas and news opinion. I’m excited for us together to fill that void.
Wow, you mean he was an enormous sack of shit the whole time??
Maybe it's time for people to start submitting Opinion pieces detailing how we can use the free market to make companies regret discontinuing their DEI programs or Pride merchandise, or telling how bodily autonomy and control over one's reproductive equipment is a central pillar of personal liberty.
Editing to add: in the event your submission is rejected, consider adding an opener such as: "This article was rejected by The Washington Post despite meeting their criteria of focus on the free market (or personal liberty)." And then submitting it to one or several of their competitors. Even the ones that aren't any better, pitting their competitive instincts against their conservativism.
Freedom is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical — it drives creativity, invention, and prosperity.
So buying a major newspaper and firing (or putting pressure on) anybody who doesn't agree with the new owner's "pillars" is not coercion? Did Bezos get this buff from the mental gymnastics?
PS: surprised nobody mentioned Manufacturing Consent yet, which describes exactly what is happening here, and remains valid in the age of Internet
Ah yes, the "personal liberty" to just accumulate wealth without limits or taxation because that is a "free market". Never mind Amazon drives on roads built with federal dollars—they are a job creator and everyone should lick their boots for that.
We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.
Just dragging this newspaper into the right wing muck at full speed now
I’m confident that free markets and personal liberties are right for America. I also believe these viewpoints are underserved in the current market of ideas and news opinion. I’m excited for us together to fill that void.
"Market of ideas" but you're only allowed to say what I like
Buy your axe grinding wheels now before it's hard to keep them in stock.
Trash capitalist propaganda is becoming even worse? I'm shocked. Shocked!!! \s
It's a good thing I stopped bothering with the Washington Post even before Bezos bought it. In fact pretty much every news organization that is owned by a singular entity is completely worthless nowadays.
Sounds like he wants more direct control.
Is he trying to "get out in front of this story" like he did with the photos of him having an affair? Has anyone heard from David Shipley what happened?
Everyone should resign. Or strike. Striking would be better
I find it important that he writes, that freedom of individuals and markets is important because it is without coercion.
To then go on and write that he tried to coerce his editor to accept the change with a "hell yes" or basically resign. This is coercion. Doesn't he see this? Is the irony lost on him?
"Democracy dies in darkness"
Honestly, the whole paper should just be entirely blacked out.
