Jeff Bezos is good for journalism
National Post, 3 November 2024
The division of readers into ever-smaller outraged segments is the real problem
The Washington Post — which marked the first Trump administration by adding the motto: “Democracy Dies in Darkness” to its masthead — had prepared an editorial endorsing Kamala Harris. It’s owner, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, killed it, saying that the paper would not endorse any candidate, not now nor ever again.
Incandescent rage followed. Staff resigned. Some 200,000 readers cancelled their subscriptions. Writers writing about writers wrought their hands over what the Post’s writers were not writing.
The level of outrage was as if Amazon had eliminated free shipping, except that this concerned far fewer people. Bezos rushed out his own editorial to explain himself titled, “The hard truth: Americans don’t trust the news media.”
He argued that too many readers thought the media was biased, and editorial endorsements tended to confirm that view, while also having zero impact on voters. So, best to drop them altogether.
Bezos denied that he killed the Post’s endorsement of Harris because he wants favours for his companies from a future Trump administration.
“When it comes to the appearance of conflict, I am not an ideal owner of The Post,” wrote Bezos. “Every day, somewhere, some (executive) from … the philanthropies and companies I own or invest in is meeting with government officials,” he wrote. “The Post is a ‘complexifier’ for me. It is, but it turns out I’m also a complexifier for The Post.”
“You can see my wealth and business interests as a bulwark against intimidation, or you can see them as a web of conflicting interests.”
It’s the point Donald Trump has been making for nine years; his personal wealth makes him immune to big donor pressure. Had he been dependent on the Republican donor class, they would have cut him off and pushed him out long ago. Many progressives who loathe him would have preferred that he was less independent, that big money had bigger influence.
The Democratic donor class demonstrated that power this summer with brutal efficiency, cashiering a sitting president and installing Harris as his replacement, despite her never having gained a single vote in a primary election.
The same writers lamenting that big-money Bezos prevented them from endorsing Harris would have never had Harris to endorse, had not big-money Democrats not vetoed the choice of Democratic primary voters. So big money is ambiguous.
Bezos keeps the money-losing Post afloat. His wealth sustains a historic title and provides journalism of a certain quality. Without Bezos, the Post’s output would be more swamped than it already is by celebrity gossip. The Daily Mail is the world’s number one news site — and the merchants of monetized anger podcasting and YouTubing.
Is Bezos and his wealth good for journalism or bad? Democracies need news, especially reporting rather than commentary. If the market does not provide it adequately, who will? Philanthropists are one answer. Generous ones. The Post lost US$77 million last year.
Government is another option. That has been, in part, Canada’s answer, with federal government subsidies paid to media companies, including Postmedia. Many voices have decried this, fearing it means government control — or at least, subsidized journalists pulling their punches for fear of losing government cash.
There is more logic to that than evidence — has the National Post suddenly become Trudeau-friendly? Stephen Harper signed cheques for the CBC for nine years. Did that influence their reporting?
Continue reading at the National Post.