[flagged]
In practice, that's of course not the case (in either domain), but it predictably makes front page news when an owner acts too egregiously domineering.
Sure, but why should the personal opinion of the owner of the newspaper prevail over the opinion of the editorial staff?
If an owner can't get decisions made in a way that is favourable to them then there are very real questions about whether they are, in fact, owning the company.
It completely flies in the face of the values of the paper and the reasons Bezos said he was buying it. If I wanted to get Bezos's press releases, I could get them on Amazon or Blue Origin's press site. No one's claiming he's not literally allowed to do this, but that it's spoiling the product. If Bezos bought McDonalds and made it serve only vegan burgers without explanation that's totally his right as the owner, but it's insane and makes you question why they did it.
Nobody is seeking these editors out for their personal opinion, I doubt many could name them. The editors are relying on the WaPo brand. They aren't all that legitimate a source of political opinion although they are as entitled to it as much as anyone else and it isn't a big deal if they want to publish it in the paper they edit (gotta fill the space with something and they believe what they believe).
These are not random people whose opinion matter as much as those of other random people. At least in theory, people seek the Post for the quality of the work done by the editorial staff. Accordingly, the staff should have more — not less — influence over the content of the paper.
No one buys the Post out of a wish to read Bezos’ personal views or those of random strangers.
Yeah. But statistically some of them are going to vote Trump so I don't think that is much of an argument why the WaPo endorsement decision needs to be made by any specific committee in the WaPo.
There are arguments for and against both candidates - the WaPo as an institution might be good at presenting both but it isn't competent to make the decision on which president is a better choice. That includes Bezos for what it is worth. If we're talking shoulds, in theory they shouldn't be endorsing anyone.
> No one buys the Post out of a wish to read Bezos’ personal views or those of random strangers.
Sounds to me like that is exactly why people buy newspapers. The drive is to find out what a community at large thinks about things and to figure out how a random sample of a community is interpreting events. If I want to learn what an expert opinion is on a topic I would not be turning to the WaPo to try and figure it out.
Although with the advent of the internet we've discovered that professional corporate journalists do a terrible job of capturing that so I expect they're being replaced by podcasters with more independence. Owner's influence has never stopped at nixing one decision.
He's entitled to do so as owner of the paper. But it reeks of cowardice.
It’s his choice I suppose but I don’t think it’s crazy to be worried about the precedent of a formerly very independent institution caving so readily.
Harris isn't terrible or unqualified. She has plenty of experience and unlike Trump cares and wants to learn the details of policy.
The two sides are not remotely similar. And yes Bezos decision to let himself be blackmailed is insane