Why are they, in your words, "winning"? More people voted for it than against. My point is that it only seems strange to defend it if you don't personally share the value. Clearly many people who voted differently have different values, and they might say it would need defending.

To see this, suppose Bezos talked instead about how the editorial staff needed to prioritize egalitarianism. There are plenty of people who share this value. You can find a great many manifestations of this value in our society. It's embedded into our constitution and legislation. But does that mean that the newspaper would be wrong to defend egalitarianism?