How Jeff Bezos brought the Washington Post’s global reputation into question

The Washington Post still conjures up, for some, the promise of fiercely independent investigative journalism that can unseat a corrupt president. In what became one of the biggest stories of the 20th century, Richard Nixon (1969-74) was forced to resign the presidency in 1974, halfway through his second term, following an investigation by Post reporters Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward.

After months of work the reporting team linked Nixon and his campaign staff to illegal donations, and to the bugging and sabotage of political opponents including a break-in at the offices of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate building, Washington DC. Their work won a Pulitzer prize.

This kicked off decades of investigative journalism and breaking stories that has cemented the Post’s global reputation.

So the recent memo by billionaire owner of the Post, Jeff Bezos, declaring that the newspaper’s opinion section will now be restricted to pieces supporting “personal liberties and free markets” (and not opposing viewpoints) came as a shock not only to loyal liberal readers and to some journalists, but also to those who see the Post as a bastion of media freedom. Bezos said on X that differing opinions can be “left to be published by others”.

The decision by Bezos prompted the opinion editor David Shipley to resign and Elon Musk to tweet “Bravo, @JeffBezos!” The paper’s newly appointed economics reporter Jeff Stein also took to X to respond to Bezos’s tweeted memo by calling it a “massive encroachment” by his new boss.

He added: “I still have not felt encroachment on my journalism on the news side of coverage, but if Bezos tries interfering with the news side I will be quitting immediately and letting you know.” Some sources suggest that the Post has lost 75,000 digital subscribers since the decision was announced.

The trailer for the film All the President’s Men, based on reporting from the Washington Post.

To many the Post’s reputation was already becoming tarnished. Bezos rocked his readership back in October 2024 when he refused to endorse a candidate in the presidential election for the first time in 36 years.

According to the paper the decision led to 250,000 readers cancelling their subscriptions. Woodward and Bernstein said the decision “ignores the Washington Post’s own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy”.

And so it came as no surprise at Trump’s inauguration that Bezos could be seen seated prominently beside his fellow tech billionaires Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, X’s Elon Musk and Google’s Sundar Pichai.

But is all lost? The Washington Post has always had its share of bold and outspoken reporters and commentators and, on Friday, Post columist Dana Milbank wrote a strongly worded opinion piece in which he said that readers were worried that Bezos’s words, “are cover for a plan to turn this into a MAGA-Friendly outlet”.

He added: “If we as a newspaper, and as a country, are to defend [Bezos’s] twin pillars, then we must redouble our fight against the single greatest threat to ‘personal liberties and free markets’ today: Donald Trump.”

Jeff Bezos brings in new rules on what can and cannot be published in the Washington Post’s opinion pages.

Has this latest move by Bezos simply made clear an editorial position which is ordinarily inferred but not made explicit? Will reporters be free to conduct investigations into Amazon’s work practices while at the same time extolling free market objectives? As yet no one knows for sure.

Coverage changes?

In January the newspaper’s Pulitzer prize-winning cartoonist, Ann Telnaes, resigned after the Post refused to publish a satirical cartoon of a group of tech and media billionaires (that included Bezos and Meta boss Mark Zuckerberg) laying bags of cash before a statue of Trump.

Telnaes described the refusal to publish as “dangerous for a free press”. Ironically it was David Shipley who claimed at the time that he had decided against publication due to “repetition”, rather than because the cartoon mocked Bezos.

Nevertheless, Post reporters have continued to focus national coverage on the wide-ranging effects of Trump’s executive orders, the sacking of senior military leaders and Doge’s culling of resources and jobs in the public sector. Neither has it escaped the new administration’s changes to media access.

On February 7 the Department of Defense announced the Post would be removed from its office in the Pentagon’s “Correspondents Corridor” along with CNN, plus the New York Times, NPR and NBC which were evicted earlier to make room for pro-Trump media organisations.

The Post today

In 2024, the Post took home three Pulitzer prizes for journalism, including one for David E. Hoffman “for a compelling and well-researched series on new technologies and the tactics authoritarian regimes use to repress dissent in the digital age, and how they can be fought”.

The past few years have been financially bruising for the paper and in 2023 the paper announced it had lost US$77 million (£69 million). In its latest round of cuts in January this year it laid off 100 employees.

Back when Bezos took over the paper in August 2013 the New York Times quoted a fellow tech entrepreneur, Redfin CEO Glenn Kelman, as saying in a now prophetic line: “It used to be that in Silicon Valley we just built the platforms and someone else wrote the content. But that is changing. The lines have been blurred for a long time, and this is just another step in that process.”

Twelve years on the “broligarchy” may not be writing the content, but is it restricting it? In these uneasy times in Washington there appears to be a growing erosion of press freedom as the new administration moves to limit access to the White House for mainstream media such as the Associated Press in favour of pro-Trump media.

Whether the Post will come down on the side of press freedom or is banking on an eventual post-Trump bump to stem its declining sales is unclear. Läs mer…

White House spat with AP over ‘Gulf of America’ ignites fears for press freedom in second Trump era

A federal judge in the District Court of Columbia will shortly decide if the US president, Donald Trump, is allowed to dictate the terms of service of the Associated Press (AP), the US wire agency that proudly proclaims it is read by 4 billion people every day.

In a (typically for this administration) knee-jerk decision on February 11, White House officials informed AP that its journalists would be barred from entering restricted areas such as the Oval Office and Air Force One until it stops using the geographic term “Gulf of Mexico” – in contravention of an executive order renaming it the “Gulf of America”.

AP’s style guide explains that the Gulf of Mexico has carried this name for more than 400 years, and that Trump’s order only holds authority within the US. It notes that as a global news agency, it “must ensure that place names and geography are easily recognizable to all audiences”.

But the style guide adds that, while AP will continue to refer to the body of water by its original name, it will do so “while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen”.

According to AP’s executive editor, Julie Pace: “Limiting our access to the Oval Office based on the content of AP’s speech not only severely impedes the public’s access to independent news, it plainly violates the first amendment” – which covers freedom of speech and the press.

In seeking to overturn the ban, AP brought a lawsuit (AP-v-Budowich-Complaint) against the White House chief of staff, Susan Wiles, the deputy chief of staff, Taylor Budowich, and its press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, in their official capacities.

After a short hearing, Judge Trevor N. McFadden – who was appointed by Trump – declined to restore AP’s access immediately, and instead set another hearing date for March 20. According to the Washington Post, the judge was “not sufficiently convinced the situation was ‘dire’ enough to warrant such an intervention” – and therefore was “not inclined to act precipitously on the executive office of the president”.

Following this decision, the White House denied access to Trump’s first cabinet meeting on February 26 to an AP photographer, as well as reporters from Reuters, HuffPost and German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel. Instead, officials allowed in cameras from ABC and Newsmax, plus reporters from Axios, the Blaze, Bloomberg and NPR.

Pick and mix

But can the president be allowed this pick-and-mix approach to access to the seat of power?

The White House press pool has been in place for more than a century, with the seating allocation in the press briefing room decided by the board of the White House Correspondents’ Association. As the major American news agency, AP has traditionally held the coveted middle front-row seat, which it still retains – even though senior officials have tweeted veiled threats to rescind AP’s entire White House credentials.

The press briefing room holds 49 seats, with some seats shared between two companies on rotation, and a few journalists or photographers permitted to stand in the aisles when there is room. Meanwhile, Air Force One (in reality, two Boeing 747s used on rotation) only has room for 13 people to represent the entire White House press corps. The pool on the plane is ordinarily made up of three agency reporters (AP, Reuters and Bloomberg), four photographers (including from AP), three network TV journalists, a radio reporter and two print reporters.

Press pool: the White House wants to control who has direct access to the president, including on Air Force One.
EPA-EFE/Olivier Douliery/pool

Trump has an ongoing fight against “legacy” news outlets that dominated coverage before the advent of the internet. These media often have strict editorial guidelines, but the president has regularly dismissed them as “fake news”. During the election campaign, he ignored well-known programmes such as CBS’s Sixty Minutes in favour of Joe Rogan’s podcast.

At the Pentagon, Trump’s new military brooms have also been sweeping legacy media companies out of their briefing rooms. This list includes NBC, the New York Times, Politico, CNN and The Washington Post. In their place will go Trump-friendly outlets such as Newsmax and the Washington Examiner.

‘Privilege, not a right’

Meanwhile, a petition by media companies is calling on the US government to “honor its commitment to freedom of expression” by upholding “a nonpartisan defense of a free press”. Included on this petition are the Committee to Protect Journalists, the International Press Institute, and the Society of Professional Journalists.

Members of the press pool are usually the only reporters that get to throw questions at senior members of the administration. Its members follow the president on important trips both nationally and internationally. AP is a widely trusted non-profit news organisation, and its reports get syndicated to media organisations throughout the world, with any profits used to pay for its staff and its newsgathering.

CNN reporter Kaitlan Collins questions the White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt over the banning of AP from White House briefings.

The White House released a statement on February 24: “As we have said from the beginning, asking the president of the United States questions in the Oval Office and aboard Air Force One is a privilege granted to journalists, not a legal right.”

However, having an independent arbiter making decisions about press pool representation is surely preferable in maintaining a free press and accountability than allowing each administration to pick its own reporters – or even its own facts. Läs mer…