Charlie Martin covered the news that Jeff Bezos "redirected" the Washington Post's editorial coverage to include "personal liberty and free markets" as its primary thrust.
"Under Biden, it didn't just seem the U.S. had lost its moorings but that the government had cut the anchor lines and left us adrift. And the media was not just going along with it; it was cheering it on," wrote Charlie.
The election of Donald Trump changed that. Bezos started the process of trying to live with the new reality before the election when he refused to allow the Post to endorse a presidential candidate. Despite what the left was screaming about at the time, this was not an unprecedented move by the Post. The Post didn't even begin endorsing candidates until 1976 when it endorsed Jimmy Carter.
I wrote at the time of WaPo's non-endorsement of Kamala Harris:
Washington Post's publisher Jeff Bezos and Los Angeles Times head Patrick Soon-Shiong purchased two failing newspapers out of vanity. They expected to lose money. But the left-wing fruitcakes at both publications think they are owed a job because they're journalists and the news is important, and what we say matters. They think they're indispensable to the functioning of our republic, and that "democracy will die in darkness." What will the nation do without us?
I imagine blacksmiths, wheelwrights, and elevator operators thought pretty much the same things.
“I am of America and for America, and proud to be so,” Bezos wrote to editorial page staffers. “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.”
True, true, and true. So why the hysterical backlash? Why did editorial page editor David Shipley resign? Why are other opinion page staffers threatening to leave?
The answer is — without any proof — that Shipley thinks that the Post will no longer publish op-eds from terrorists, dictators, and other slimy creatures who want to propagandize the American people.
In response, Mr. Shipley expressed reservations about Mr. Bezos’ new approach for a variety of reasons, the people said. Among his misgivings: The Post’s ecumenical approach to commentary made the coverage unique and valuable, and putting out a daily section with quality writing on a narrower set of views could be challenging.
"Ecumenical approach" to publishing is a euphemism for "controversy." Journalists believe that being controversial makes them important and interesting. It gets them invited on MSNBC. It's certainly "unique," but calling it "valuable" is another way of saying it sells papers.
Isn't that sort of what Bezos was saying?
As with anything that disturbs the left today, it doesn't have to be a real threat to be seen as the end of the world.
Jeff Stein, the Post’s chief economics reporter, called the change a "massive encroachment" on the opinion page staff and that “dissenting views will not be published or tolerated there.”
Huh? Where did Bezos's statement say that?
“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,” Stein wrote on X.
I hope he takes his ball and goes home.
There is a pattern developing here. It's like the world of a child's nightmares has become real, and the left is shadowboxing with monsters, ghouls, and goblins.
There, there, my liberal friends. It's only a dream. When you wake up, the sun will be out, the skies will be blue, and everything will be right as rain.
Except Trump will still be president.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member