Thank you! Your thoughts helped--a tad--in putting mine at ease. Or at least took the edge off my initial frustration and bad gut-feelings. We are in a time when every day seems like a twenty-four hour emotional cycle of fight or flight. Thanks for the information your piece provided, as well as the perspective after we've had some time to think.
On the subscription dilemma, as much as I have concerns about Mr. Bezos, the news side has done a lot of desperately needed and important reporting during this time. Guess we'll have to stay-tuned.
And--loved the photo! Citizen Kane is still one of my all-time favorite movies. Took my girlfriend to see it on a date. Non-news person. She married me anyway! And I'm forever thankful. Have a good week.
By chance, I saw Dean Baquet speak this week. The Bezos question came up, and Baquet said the editorial pages were Bezos's purview. Bezos, he noted, is unusual for a publisher in having very wide-ranging business interests, and he thinks Bezos is now putting the Post behind his other interests. Which, again, is his purview. But he says it is a concern that he did not make the change a year ago, instead doing it just before the election. The concern is amplified by sitting on the dais at the inauguration, by contributing $1 million to the inaugural fund, by having his production company bid $40 million to make a documentary about Melania Trump. "all those combined make me concerned," Baquet said.
As always, you make good sense. But what I've learned from the behavior of our billionaires over the last few years is that when they leave anything unsaid, it's not much of a risk to assume the worst of them. Jeff Bezos gets no benefit of the doubt from me, nor does his newspaper now that he has confirmed his active role in it.
For what it's worth, I quit the Post after the endorsement dust-up last year. I've told friends that I plan to resubscribe just so I can cancel it again. It's just a quip, since my deeply discounted $40 annual subscription gives me access until May whether I want it or not.
The cancellations may not bother Bezos but they're bothering the circulation department. Four years ago, I was gladly playing $150 a year for online access, yet somehow THEY lowered my price to $75 one year, and $40 the next - just because it's my habit not to allow subscriptions to renew automatically. Now they're spamming me to re-up for $25.
So Bezos obviously isn't worried about the newspaper's business side; if he was, they'd have a simple algorithm to identify that my non-renewal isn't about the price.
I'm also trying my best to quit Amazon and will not resubscribe to Prime when that year-long subscription expires (in 10 months).
Just because the news industry is largely owned by oligarchs does not mean I have to learn to live with it.
Thanks for this smart piece. I wonder what happens to opinion pieces submitted to the Post that argue that among the biggest threats to free markets and free people in the US are giant tech companies like Amazon, given their expertise at surveillance of their customers and their dominance in the marketplace.
I think all those outraged by Bezos's position are ignoring the reality of newspapers. Editorial opinions change nobody's minds. News-reporting revelations sometimes open the eyes of people who had been willfully blind. Bezos is doing a lot for America by maintaining a major staff of news reporters on the ground in the nation's capitol. Grateful readers should support him with subscriptions.
Thanks for this Dick. As I recall WSJ motto was "Free Markets, Free People", and "two papers for the price of one." I also have no idea what Bezos meant. or what is going on there.
A few of us are old enough to remember when the tagline on the Journal's marketing campaign was "For the Man in Business." Warren Phillips's explanation was that not enough women had risen high enough in corporate hierarchies to become part of our target demographic.
Thoughtful analysis, thanks. Problem is, there's a war on, and every thinking person must pledge allegiance to one side or the other. There is no responsible middle ground anymore. Many had believed Bezos was a good guy fighting for the right cause, who could afford to show some courage. Not so. When push came to shove, he got shoved. I've canceled my four decade subscription to the Post, with deep regret. Bezos' actions prove it cannot be trusted.
Well, on a lot of these framings, there's actually more than two sides. Politically, I don't vote for either duopoly party, and I mention the option of third-party, or even write-in, voting on editorial columns around general election time.
Your rounding up of history softens the acute sting of Bezos' recent act. A little "inside the ball park" for me - who standing over the papers in the photograph? Thank you, and thank you for your sage advice to our Cambridge local new enterprise.
Thank you! Your thoughts helped--a tad--in putting mine at ease. Or at least took the edge off my initial frustration and bad gut-feelings. We are in a time when every day seems like a twenty-four hour emotional cycle of fight or flight. Thanks for the information your piece provided, as well as the perspective after we've had some time to think.
On the subscription dilemma, as much as I have concerns about Mr. Bezos, the news side has done a lot of desperately needed and important reporting during this time. Guess we'll have to stay-tuned.
And--loved the photo! Citizen Kane is still one of my all-time favorite movies. Took my girlfriend to see it on a date. Non-news person. She married me anyway! And I'm forever thankful. Have a good week.
By chance, I saw Dean Baquet speak this week. The Bezos question came up, and Baquet said the editorial pages were Bezos's purview. Bezos, he noted, is unusual for a publisher in having very wide-ranging business interests, and he thinks Bezos is now putting the Post behind his other interests. Which, again, is his purview. But he says it is a concern that he did not make the change a year ago, instead doing it just before the election. The concern is amplified by sitting on the dais at the inauguration, by contributing $1 million to the inaugural fund, by having his production company bid $40 million to make a documentary about Melania Trump. "all those combined make me concerned," Baquet said.
Entirely agreed.
As always, you make good sense. But what I've learned from the behavior of our billionaires over the last few years is that when they leave anything unsaid, it's not much of a risk to assume the worst of them. Jeff Bezos gets no benefit of the doubt from me, nor does his newspaper now that he has confirmed his active role in it.
For what it's worth, I quit the Post after the endorsement dust-up last year. I've told friends that I plan to resubscribe just so I can cancel it again. It's just a quip, since my deeply discounted $40 annual subscription gives me access until May whether I want it or not.
The cancellations may not bother Bezos but they're bothering the circulation department. Four years ago, I was gladly playing $150 a year for online access, yet somehow THEY lowered my price to $75 one year, and $40 the next - just because it's my habit not to allow subscriptions to renew automatically. Now they're spamming me to re-up for $25.
So Bezos obviously isn't worried about the newspaper's business side; if he was, they'd have a simple algorithm to identify that my non-renewal isn't about the price.
I'm also trying my best to quit Amazon and will not resubscribe to Prime when that year-long subscription expires (in 10 months).
Just because the news industry is largely owned by oligarchs does not mean I have to learn to live with it.
Thanks for this smart piece. I wonder what happens to opinion pieces submitted to the Post that argue that among the biggest threats to free markets and free people in the US are giant tech companies like Amazon, given their expertise at surveillance of their customers and their dominance in the marketplace.
I think all those outraged by Bezos's position are ignoring the reality of newspapers. Editorial opinions change nobody's minds. News-reporting revelations sometimes open the eyes of people who had been willfully blind. Bezos is doing a lot for America by maintaining a major staff of news reporters on the ground in the nation's capitol. Grateful readers should support him with subscriptions.
This (on the endorsements)! And the fact that newspaper editorial page candidate endorsements don't move needles was true 20 years ago and more, per American Journalism Review. My thoughts: https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2024/10/butt-hurt-newspaper-editorial-page.html
On the other angles? Given DC is a one-industry town, Ken Klippenstein does more for DC than does Bezos, IMO.
Thanks for this Dick. As I recall WSJ motto was "Free Markets, Free People", and "two papers for the price of one." I also have no idea what Bezos meant. or what is going on there.
You are right that “free men” eventually gave way to “free people,” but much later than it should have.
A few of us are old enough to remember when the tagline on the Journal's marketing campaign was "For the Man in Business." Warren Phillips's explanation was that not enough women had risen high enough in corporate hierarchies to become part of our target demographic.
Thoughtful analysis, thanks. Problem is, there's a war on, and every thinking person must pledge allegiance to one side or the other. There is no responsible middle ground anymore. Many had believed Bezos was a good guy fighting for the right cause, who could afford to show some courage. Not so. When push came to shove, he got shoved. I've canceled my four decade subscription to the Post, with deep regret. Bezos' actions prove it cannot be trusted.
Well, on a lot of these framings, there's actually more than two sides. Politically, I don't vote for either duopoly party, and I mention the option of third-party, or even write-in, voting on editorial columns around general election time.
Hang fire on that mea culpa; Bezos might not want to sell to Kara Swisher but that doesn't mean he's not open to 'the right kind of offer'.
Another thought-provoking post Dick.
Your rounding up of history softens the acute sting of Bezos' recent act. A little "inside the ball park" for me - who standing over the papers in the photograph? Thank you, and thank you for your sage advice to our Cambridge local new enterprise.
Thanks so much. That is Orson Welles as Charles Foster Kane in “Citizen Kane.”