Opposition intensifies against Bezos after non-endorsement leads to significant increase in cancellations

I concur with Jeff Bezos on this point: The media is no longer trusted by the public.

The Washington Post's Kamala Harris endorsement days before the election was a huge mistake, a massive stink bomb that caused further damage to the campaign.

Some prominent journalists on his editorial board have resigned, while NPR reports that 250,000 people have canceled their subscriptions, which is 10% of its 2.5 million paid subscribers. He has done a great job damaging the Post's reputation.

If Bezos had announced the no-endorsement policy six months ago, it wouldn't have mattered much.

In his first defense, the billionaire concedes that he was wrong.

"I regret not making the change earlier, before the election and the heightened emotions surrounding it," he writes, attributing it to "poor planning" on his part. I've been saying this for days. Not having enough Amazon van drivers is a result of poor planning. This was a disaster.

The reason for his actions is evident: fear of Donald Trump. The two men have had a tumultuous relationship. Bezos believes Trump has a strong chance of winning and a history of holding grudges, even referring to opponents as "the enemy within," a phrase he defended during his interview with me in Trump Tower.

What is the point of further irritating the guy? Trump's victory comes from ending the Harris endorsement.

The federal government frequently does business with both Amazon and Blue Origin, and Bezos once sued the Trump administration over a denied contract. This is a gesture of goodwill.

The cancellation of subscriptions reflects a deep sense of betrayal among readers, which is difficult to regain. Former Post editor Marty Baron, who covered the Trump administration, has accused his old paper of "spinelessness" and was on TV yesterday, stating that such actions erode trust. Top columnists are taking on the boss in published pieces, which the newsroom has also covered aggressively.

The Los Angeles Times has experienced a similar situation, with biotech mogul Patrick Soon-Shiong ending a Harris editorial and adopting a no-endorsement stance. This led to the resignation of three top opinion editors. In that case, his daughter was involved and spoke out about the U.S. supporting "genocide" in Gaza. Now, USA Today has joined the no-endorsement movement.

The Post, where I worked for three decades, has gained more interest due to the Bezos factor and its location within the Beltway. Even Woodward and Bernstein have criticized the move.

Since acquiring the Post 11 years ago, Bezos and his billions have earned credit for its preservation. He invested in the paper's digital transformation while respecting the autonomy of the newsroom.

As the owner, Bezos has the right to set editorial policy, but the bungling has caused an incredible backlash, regardless of whether these and other papers endorse it.

For the past two years, the Post's left-leaning editorial pages have consistently expressed their opinions on every issue, often with attacks against Trump. However, as the election approaches, the owner experiences a fainting spell and declares that they cannot reveal their stance on the most crucial decision a newspaper must make annually, aside from opining on war and peace. Oh no.

Bezos initially had no issue with the Post endorsing Democrats in 2016 and 2020. However, he has now stopped the paper from making such endorsements. If supporting a presidential candidate is so controversial, why does the paper still make endorsements in state and local races?

Bezos shares my view that newspaper editorial pages often lack ideological diversity, despite their focus on racial and gender diversity. To address this, he appointed Will Lewis, a Brit who has experience working at the Wall Street Journal, to bring more conservative voices to the table.

During the old British hacking scandal, Sally Buzbee, then-Post editor, clashed with Lewis over the need to cover the controversy. She resigned rather than accept a demotion.

In a decade, people will still be discussing Bezos' impact on the Post.

The cancellations of subscriptions are harming the paper, which is detrimental to the journalists who work there, particularly after a recent round of layoffs and buyouts. Many argue that if the issue is with Bezos, it would be more effective to cancel Amazon Prime instead.