Jeff Bezos Thinks Washington Post Readers Are Idiots

by Parker Molloy

Less than two weeks before the presidential election, Jeff Bezos, the billionaire owner of The Washington Post, personally intervened to spike an already written and approved endorsement of Democratic candidate Kamala Harris for president. In doing so, he seized control from the editors of the paper in order to impose his own political preferences on the Post’s readership. 

What’s worse is his ham-handed attempt to clean up his mess.

On Monday evening, Bezos published an op-ed in the Post aimed at justifying his decision as an attempt to restore the public’s damaged trust in the media. He pointed out that journalism has fallen below Congress in Gallup’s annual trust survey, positioning himself as a concerned steward of the Fourth Estate. But his actions suggest he doesn’t think very highly either of his readers’ intelligence or of the public trust.

If this decision had truly been about restoring trust and appearing unbiased, why wait until the eleventh hour? Timing is everything in the last days of a presidential campaign, and this move reeks of ulterior motives. Whether he was hedging his bets against potential retribution after a Donald Trump victory, or subtly supporting that very outcome, the last-minute personal intervention was a glaring red flag.

Nor was this the first time Bezos undermined the paper’s credibility. Earlier this year, he brought on Will Lewis, a scandal-plagued British media executive. Lewis’s history, which includes trying to kill unfavorable stories using bribes and corporate pressure, doesn’t exactly scream “trustworthy leadership.” Combined with Bezos’s recent meddling, and it’s hard not to see a pattern of disregard for journalistic integrity. 

When media executives talk about “fixing” trust in journalism, the proposed solutions often involve pandering to the right—bending over backward to appease a demographic that has consistently shown hostility toward mainstream media. It’s a misguided strategy. The reality is, no amount of appeasement will win over a group committed to viewing the press as the enemy. Meanwhile, loyal readers who do value accurate reporting feel betrayed.

The proof is in the numbers. According to NPR, over 250,000 subscribers—or 10% of the Post’s entire subscriber base—canceled their subscriptions to the paper following these events. That’s a quarter of a million people who decided they’ve had enough. They’re not just on the left; they’re also centrists and independents who recognize when a publication is compromising its values. They care about accuracy and integrity, not the performative appearance of objectivity. Indeed, readers expect newspapers to take a stand on critical issues, especially during an election that will shape the nation’s future. The Post’s silence isn’t a demonstration of responsibility; it’s an abdication of responsibility.