Bezos Puts Washington Post's Global Reputation at Risk

The Washington Post still conjures up, for some, the promise of fiercely independent investigative journalism that can unseat a corrupt president. In what became one of the biggest stories of the 20th century, Richard Nixon (1969-74) was forced to resign the presidency in 1974, halfway through his second term, following an investigation by Post reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward.

After months of work the reporting team linked Nixon and his campaign staff to illegal donations, and to the bugging and sabotage of political opponents including a break-in at the offices of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate building, Washington DC. Their work won a Pulitzer prize.

This kicked off decades of investigative journalism and breaking stories that has cemented the Post's global reputation.

So the recent memo by billionaire owner of the Post, Jeff Bezos, declaring that the newspaper's opinion section will now be restricted to pieces supporting "personal liberties and free markets" (and not opposing viewpoints) came as a shock not only to loyal liberal readers and to some journalists, but also to those who see the Post as a bastion of media freedom. Bezos said on X that differing opinions can be "left to be published by others".

The decision by Bezos prompted the opinion editor David Shipley to resign and Elon Musk to tweet "Bravo, @JeffBezos!" The paper's newly appointed economics reporter Jeff Stein also took to X to respond to Bezos's tweeted memo by calling it a "massive encroachment" by his new boss.

He added: "I still have not felt encroachment on my journalism on the news side of coverage, but if Bezos tries interfering with the news side I will be quitting immediately and letting you know." Some sources suggest that the Post has lost 75,000 digital subscribers since the decision was announced.

To many the Post's reputation was already becoming tarnished. Bezos rocked his readership back in October 2024 when he refused to endorse a candidate in the presidential election for the first time in 36 years.

According to the paper the decision led to 250,000 readers cancelling their subscriptions. Woodward and Bernstein said the decision "ignores the Washington Post's own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy".

And so it came as no surprise at Trump's inauguration that Bezos could be seen seated prominently beside his fellow tech billionaires Meta's Mark Zuckerberg, X's Elon Musk and Google's Sundar Pichai.

But is all lost? The Washington Post has always had its share of bold and outspoken reporters and commentators and, on Friday, Post columist Dana Milbank wrote a strongly worded opinion piece in which he said that readers were worried that Bezos's words, "are cover for a plan to turn this into a MAGA-Friendly outlet".

He added: "If we as a newspaper, and as a country, are to defend [Bezos's] twin pillars, then we must redouble our fight against the single greatest threat to 'personal liberties and free markets' today: Donald Trump."

Has this latest move by Bezos simply made clear an editorial position which is ordinarily inferred but not made explicit? Will reporters be free to conduct investigations into Amazon's work practices while at the same time extolling free market objectives? As yet no one knows for sure.

Coverage changes?

In January the newspaper's Pulitzer prize-winning cartoonist, Ann Telnaes, resigned after the Post refused to publish a satirical cartoon of a group of tech and media billionaires (that included Bezos and Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg) laying bags of cash before a statue of Trump.

Telnaes described the refusal to publish as "dangerous for a free press". Ironically it was David Shipley who claimed at the time that he had decided against publication due to "repetition", rather than because the cartoon mocked Bezos.

Nevertheless, Post reporters have continued to focus national coverage on the wide-ranging effects of Trump's executive orders, the sacking of senior military leaders and Doge's culling of resources and jobs in the public sector. Neither has it escaped the new administration's changes to media access.

On February 7 the Department of Defense announced the Post would be removed from its office in the Pentagon's "Correspondents Corridor" along with CNN, plus the New York Times, NPR and NBC which were evicted earlier to make room for pro-Trump media organisations.

The Post today

In 2024, the Post took home three Pulitzer prizes for journalism, including one for David E. Hoffman "for a compelling and well-researched series on new technologies and the tactics authoritarian regimes use to repress dissent in the digital age, and how they can be fought".

The past few years have been financially bruising for the paper and in 2023 the paper announced it had lost US$77 million (£69 million) . In its latest round of cuts in January this year it laid off 100 employees.

Back when Bezos took over the paper in August 2013 the New York Times quoted a fellow tech entrepreneur, Redfin CEO Glenn Kelman , as saying in a now prophetic line: "It used to be that in Silicon Valley we just built the platforms and someone else wrote the content. But that is changing. The lines have been blurred for a long time, and this is just another step in that process."

Twelve years on the "broligarchy" may not be writing the content, but is it restricting it? In these uneasy times in Washington there appears to be a growing erosion of press freedom as the new administration moves to limit access to the White House for mainstream media such as the Associated Press in favour of pro-Trump media.

Whether the Post will come down on the side of press freedom or is banking on an eventual post-Trump bump to stem its declining sales is unclear.

Colleen Murrell received funding from Irish regulator Coimisiún na Meán (2021-4) for research for the annual Reuters Digital News Report Ireland.