Jeff Bezos Frees WaPo Opinion Pages Of The Personal Liberty Of Expressing Their Opinion

Look, when Jeff Bezos bought the Washington Post a decade ago, people worried that a billionaire owner might interfere with the paper’s editorial independence. For years, those fears seemed overblown — Bezos appeared content to let journalists do journalism while he focused on more pressing matters (like building rockets and not paying taxes). But it turns out the worriers were right, just early.

In the last few months, Bezos has made it increasingly clear that the Washington Post now exists primarily as a vehicle for expressing Bezos’ opinions, not anyone else’s. (To be clear, he has every right to do this — it’s his paper! — though it’s a bit rich to claim this somehow builds “trust” in journalism.)

The first indication of this editorial interference was Bezos’ decision to block the WaPo from endorsing Kamala Harris before the election. Bezos later claimed that this was necessary to bring back “trust” in journalism, totally missing that the real way to destroy trust in journalism is… to have billionaires stepping in and interfering with the journalism.

But that was just the appetizer. The main course of billionaire meddling arrived in an email Bezos sent to all employees:

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.

Jeff

Let’s enjoy the rich irony of this ridiculous email together, shall we?

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.

First off, this sounds like the late night bong-fueled thoughts of a college kid who just discovered Ayn Rand, not a 61 year old ultra billionaire who should recognize that the world contains more nuance and complexities than “personal liberties and free markets, good; everything else, bad.”

Look, I’m sympathetic to the broad strokes here. Techdirt’s whole ethos is built around personal liberties and free markets. But there’s an important difference: we recognize these concepts as complex systems that require careful calibration, not simple catchphrases to be wielded like rhetorical clubs. And — much more importantly — we’ve spent years documenting how the loudest champions of “personal liberty and free markets” often use those very words while systematically dismantling actual liberties and enabling good old-fashioned crony capitalism.

The billionaire freedom paradox works something like this: Elon Musk, who has clearly appointed himself America’s shadow president, has spent the last almost three years falsely claiming that he is all about bringing back the “personal liberty” of free speech… while actually doing a tremendous amount of work to suppress and stifle the speech of those who challenge him.

And it’s not just an Elon thing. Consider Rupert Murdoch, who for decades positioned himself as the world’s most prominent champion of free market capitalism. Right up until his own businesses started losing in that free market. Then, suddenly, the invisible hand didn’t seem so wise anymore, and he demanded corporate welfare in the form of special taxes on the companies beating him at his own game. (Funny how that works.)

We see this pattern so often it might as well be a law of nature: the volume of someone’s “personal liberty” rhetoric is inversely proportional to their actual respect for others’ liberties. Call it the Billionaire’s First Law of Freedom. Hell, if Bezos was all about “personal liberties,” why is he blocking the opinion team from having the “personal liberty” to write about things Bezos disagrees with?

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.

This argument might sound familiar to media watchers. It’s essentially the same logic the NY Times used when killing its public editor role: “Why have internal accountability when the internet exists?” (A question that answers itself, really.) In both cases, these newspapers fundamentally misunderstand both their own role and how the internet actually works.

Here’s the thing: The Washington Post’s Opinion pages don’t derive their value from being yet another place to read opinions (we have plenty of those, thanks). They matter because of decades of hard-won institutional credibility and editorial infrastructure. When something appears in the Washington Post, it carries weight precisely because it’s gone through that process, because there’s at least a general sense of an institutional commitment to certain standards.

Now, has this system sometimes failed? Absolutely. The WaPo Opinion section has published its share of terrible takes over the years. (Boy, have they ever.) But Bezos’ announcement doesn’t even pretend to address quality control or editorial standards. Instead, it just declares which opinions are allowed: specifically, the ones Jeff likes. It’s less “building trust in journalism” and more “building an extremely expensive personal blog.”

And, in doing so, it simultaneously undermines the long-held institutional credibility that provided so much value to the Washington Post in the first place.

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.

Paraphrasing: “And therefore, I am taking away that freedom from my staff, and the opinion writers they bring in to make sure that the Washington Post no longer has creativity, invention, or prosperity.”

I mean, seriously. Read that again. It’s like declaring yourself Champion of Democracy by abolishing elections (I dread how long until this analogy comes true).

As for David Shipley’s resignation (after being stripped of his own “personal liberties,” naturally), the message couldn’t be clearer: The next Opinion editor’s job description might as well read “Must be willing to serve as Jeff Bezos’ ideological ventriloquist dummy.”

Again, he is absolutely allowed to do this, as it is his property. But it’s a major shift in the way people think of the Washington Post and what they will expect from it. And, whether or not they trust it.

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.

Ah yes, the famously underserved “free markets and personal liberties” opinion market. A genre about as neglected as superhero movies in Hollywood, or AI companies in venture capital portfolios.

What Bezos really means is that he’s upset that the WaPo Opinion pages has, on occasion, called out the nonsense and excesses of the billionaire class, and the institutional failures to curb crony capitalism. And he’s sort of right — most serious publications tend to engage with these ideas as complex policy matters rather than using them as rhetorical sledgehammers to promote whatever simplistic goal the billionaire class wants this week.

Let’s codify what we might call The Ultra Billionaire’s Guide to Freedom:

1. “Free markets” means I’m free to make as much money as possible
2. “Personal liberty” means I’m personally at liberty to do whatever I want
3. If you disagree with points 1 or 2, see point 2 again
4. If you try to stop me from exercising points 1 or 2, your personal liberties suddenly become theoretical constructs worthy of philosophical debate (or just outright suppression, if time is short) rather than actual rights

(Note: This guide is subject to change without notice, especially if the free market starts producing outcomes the billionaire doesn’t like.)

The Washington Post Opinion section has effectively been transformed from a forum for diverse viewpoints into Jeff’s Personal Newsletter About Freedom. Multiple WaPo journalists have already recognized this and called it out. While the opinion side and news side traditionally maintain separate territories, several news-side reporters have made it clear that any similar encroachment on their turf will trigger a mass exodus. (A personal liberty they still retain, at least for now.)

When Bezos first dipped his toe into editorial interference by blocking the Harris endorsement, over 300,000 WaPo subscribers voted with their wallets and cancelled their subscriptions. (The free market at work, you might say.) If you’re one of those ex-subscribers looking for a publication that still believes in actual journalistic independence — and not just as a marketing slogan to whitewash billionaire guilt — feel free to check out the many ways you can support Techdirt.

And, Jeff, you’re free to donate as well, but we won’t change our editorial policies for anyone.