Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post in 2013, but his involvement seemed to only encompass financial support and benefit — until recently. Bezos has now gone public about his direct influence on The Post’s published content, specifically targeting opinions.
In late February, Bezos tweeted that The Post’s opinions section would “be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets.” Personally believing both pillars are “right for America,” he claimed opposing viewpoints would not be published.
This concerns all open to reading a diversity of opinions and leaves the future role of opinions and media in political, economic and social culture uncertain. Opinions are not for sale, nor are they to play host to economic and political motivations. As an independent and self-sustained editorial board, we believe it is vital for any functioning newspaper to publish a diverse range of well-informed opinions to frame the facts for readers.
While Bezos may paint himself as a champion for freedom and autonomy, the glaring violation of journalists’ personal liberties is not only indicative of Bezos’ career neglect of workers but also the dangerous role media is relegated to under billionaire ownership and censorship.
Bezos does not get to be the arbiter of vague terms and blanket nationalism; opinions, separate from news, have and should always be a place for a broad array of perspectives on accurate information. The irony in his second pillar, “free markets” and incentives for “creativity, invention, and prosperity,” is the coercion of journalists to write within the box — to disseminate and think through a limited perspective for the lofty reward of publication and a stable wage.
Wealthy individuals trading shares and using the press to add to their portfolio of wealth is not a new trend — not even for The Post — and it’s no secret media outlets have and attract perceived biases. Though heavily known for its involvement in the Watergate scandal, the paper has a long history of influencing the public editorially, from support for the Iraq War to opposition to the New Deal. The Post is also credited with coining stances and terms, like McCarthyism, that make the vocabulary and facts to think critically about the world accessible to the public, historically gaining traction for its political commentary and winning over 70 Pulitzer Prizes.
Regardless of whether we agree with The Posts’ historic alliances or biases, the important point is that the freedom to write on any side at any point without retribution or censorship has always existed. Bezos’ recent intervention in seemingly free press is a blatant misappropriation of opinions-based writing and media and an attempt to suppress free speech.
Bezos’ move comes in an era in which opinion-based media is increasingly devalued as bias, but there is a difference. The move ultimately serves to convince readers that the media is inconsequential to them and, therefore, they should not critically and openly consult, let alone engage with, media on heavily consequential issues.
Last year, Gannett, one of the largest media conglomerates, fired Tony Doris, the editor of the Palm Beach Post editorial page, for not meeting Gannett’s “standards” after he sought to publish a political cartoon criticizing the Israeli government. Gannett has also pulled back on publishing opinions and editorials altogether, claiming audiences do not want to be reminded of bias.
In 2024, Bezos prevented The Posts’ Editorial Board from publishing a presidential endorsement among a rapid kill of editorial endorsements following the 2016 elections across major outlets now owned by hedge funds or private equity groups, ultimately leading to suspicions of owners. A statement from The Post’s guild revealed fear and concern over readers’ trust for future guidance. Despite The Post’s Editorial Board representing the opinions of the paper — not Bezos — there is no accountability for the denial of well-informed opinion-based writing, but ample opportunity for biased media.
The conflation of opinions writing and simple bias as a justification for censorship is also a conflation of opinions and news — recent transparency on censorship is an indication of censorship that has been going on for years and can escalate, even to the news, in the future. Associated Press journalists were recently denied access to the Oval Office for refusing to use the terminology “Gulf of America” instead of “Gulf of Mexico.”
Meanwhile, in early February, several media outlets, including The Post, were evicted from their offices at the Pentagon, making room for outlets more willing to be political lapdogs. It comes as no surprise Bezos is now moving to censor his staff and appease the image of influential figures, including himself, following The Post’s eviction. It’s ironic that one of The Post’s political cartoonists, Ann Telnaes, had a cartoon killed off earlier this year. It had featured Bezos kneeling at Trump’s feet with a bag of money.
“In all that time I’ve never had a cartoon killed because of who or what I chose to aim my pen at,” she wrote. “Until now.”
These examples highlight the vulnerable and pivotal position media outlets are in. It has become increasingly clear the media is seen as a means to an end, not a space for independent, critical and atypical thought. As student journalists, we understand the impact any given framing of news can have and the good in furthering dialogue through thoughtful commentary. With book bans and curriculum restrictions on the rise, free speech in the media, especially opinion sections, needs to be another place where this right is guaranteed.
The staff editorial solely represents the majority view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings.