Serious question: how so? I was really worried when I heard he had bought WaPo, however it seems like he hasn't touched the editorial side at all. I haven't seen a change. However, the business and tech sides have improved, which is good news.
By dedicating so many resources to Trump and the gossip surrounding him, it leaves less resources to cover other, actually important issues. It's made a huge change in the direction of the paper. There's much more about Trump now and less on other important topics. I'm surprised you didn't notice it.
Sorry, they were probably too busy reading about The Pentagon Papers, The Watergate Burglary, Iran/Contra, Monica Lewinsky, WMDs, etc. to notice that The Post had taken a new interest in reporting on The Whitehouse.
This wasn't just 'a new interest in reporting on The Whitehouse'.
That being said, one bad thing about Bezos owning WaPo is that Trump can dismiss it as "Bezo's / Amazon's WaPo".
> it seems like he hasn't touched the editorial side at all
which on the surface looks true, but under the surface isn't. Bezos has been directing editorial coverage behind the scenes at WaPo. I belive this is what rufus_2 is referring to as 'despicable'. That you said you haven't noticed it makes it more worrying.
While additional Trump coverage may have happened without Bezos interfering, and I agree this would happen naturally, the issue here is that the changes happened at the request of Bezos. Bezos did interfere on the editorial side and did direct the paper to cover more of certain stories and less of others.
Regarding the NYT, its articles regarding Trump are noticeably more tame and fewer in number.
Evidence?
Trumps rise was a huge in this country. A paper is going to increase its coverage of a growing story (of that importance as a potential president). Can you provide some more of Bezos singling out Trump for more coverage than a paper would have?