In the light of Jeff Bezos’ announcement about changes in the opinion section of The Washington Post, the venerable newspaper he owns, we have some thoughts on the difference between having principles, which we all should strive to have in the business of journalism (and in life), and writing only in support of something, which can lead to all kinds of bad outcomes as Bezos, as one of the most successful corporate executives ever to live, surely knows.
On Wednesday, Bezos announced that henceforth the Post would be “writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course,” his crystal-clear note to a shocked newsroom went on, “but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.”
Owners of newspapers have set directions for as long as there have been owners of newspapers so, notwithstanding all the handwringing from those who lament the apparent disappearance of a long-standing progressive point of view, Bezos is exercising his prerogative. Whether that’s a good business decision for so established a liberal brand is another question, but not one that concerns us. We’d certainly defer to Bezos’ proven expertise.
Indeed, at first blush it appeared to us that Bezos was moving the Post’s editorial board to a point of view closer to our own. This editorial board has long-standing principles that predate the current members but abide. One salient paragraph reads:
The Tribune believes in the traditional principles of limited government; maximum individual responsibility; and minimum restriction of personal liberty, opportunity and enterprise. It believes in free markets, free will and freedom of expression.
That’s probably very much in line with the new Bezos thinking for the Post. But we have more detail, also relevant here:
The facts and nuances of each issue, and not a forged set of ideological templates, dictate where the newspaper will stand. The Tribune is not blindly or uncritically partisan. No political party should take its support for granted.
And:
The Tribune places great emphasis on the integrity of government and of the private institutions and individuals who serve and lead society. It acts as a watchdog on government, protecting citizen interests in quarters where citizens themselves might not otherwise be represented. The newspaper does this in the belief that the people cannot consent to be governed unless they have knowledge of, and faith in, the leaders and operations of government.
We’re especially fond of that last sentence, such faith being presently in short supply in both Chicago and Washington, even though leaders from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum are in charge. We find those individuals to be more similar in key respects than one might have expected.
So editorial principles about personal liberties and free markets not only have definitional complexity but always have to be examined in the light of daily circumstances. Sometimes, their protection demands you do not write in blind support of them in every circumstance. The pillars can crack.
That brings us to our second issue with the Bezos statement, this one concerning opinion articles, not editorials.
The owner of the Post apparently thinks the internet is the new best venue for ensuring that Americans are exposed to a wide variety of diverse viewpoints.
We think the opposite is true and are surprised that an executive who built a huge business in part through his algorithmic mastery does not agree.
Social media channels that once fostered such opinions have now become polarized; you now find progressives on Bluesky and conservatives on X, unless someone is intellectually curious enough to read both sides. So no, Mr. Bezos, the internet does not now do the job of “a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views.”
That’s the entire raison d’etre of such a section in a newspaper like the Chicago Tribune or The New York Times or The Washington Post, where standard operating procedure is (or at least should be) to curate informed, readable, intelligent and provocative points of view and present them to readers without regard to political favor.
A newspaper reflects its point of view in editorials (and thanks for reading this one). And in what used to be called an “op-ed section” ( a relic of the print era, perhaps), it publishes those who disagree with that point of view and those who offer up opinions about matters that perhaps never made it onto an editorial board’s radar in the first place.
That’s what we try to do — imperfectly, sure, as we are reminded by our readers every day — but, still.
Why otherwise bother?
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
