Article|Archive
Soon after Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon.com, acquired The Washington Post for $250 million in 2013, he assured its editors and reporters – myself included – that he would give us the freedom to do our jobs and “follow the story” without interference from him.
At a 2016 Washington Post tech forum with Marty Baron, who was then executive editor, Bezos quoted a phrase he had heard from the legendary Watergate reporter Bob Woodward: “Democracy dies in darkness.”
It was a perfect motto to advertise the mission of one of America’s most storied and respected news organizations – a newspaper that has won 76 Pulitzer Prizes since 1936 – and herald the new ownership of a company that had been run by one family for 80 years. When “Democracy Dies in Darkness” debuted as the Post’s motto in February 2017, a month into the first Donald Trump presidency, the organization had to endure some light teasing for its apparent self-seriousness. Late night comedian Stephen Colbert quipped that the rejected phrases included "No, You Shut Up" and "Come at Me, Bro." Joking aside, the slogan captured the crucial and symbiotic relationship between a free press and a healthy democracy.
Readers embraced what it said about the Post’s practice of rigorous, tough-minded journalism. So did the newsroom. Bezos wanted pithy words worthy of printing on T-shirts – and sales were brisk. On Fridays, sometimes half the staff at the morning news meeting showed up wearing this mission statement.
In journalism, as in so much of life, mission is everything. It’s what gets you up in the morning, it’s what rights the wrongs and it’s also what builds the business. At the Post, that mission has long been the scrutiny of power – showing how leaders acquire it, revealing when they abuse it and illuminating the consequences of its use and misuse.
America’s founders sought to protect this function when they ratified the First Amendment, writing that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. The Post, like other U.S. media outlets, is able to do its important work thanks to those constitutional protections from government interference. But Bezos’ recent actions and decisions as owner are undermining the Post’s mission and eroding its ability to hold power to account.
I spent 19 years at the Post, including nearly eight as managing editor for news and features and then senior managing editor, working for Baron and his successor, Sally Buzbee. For three months between their tenures, I was acting executive editor. During those years, I admired Bezos for his willingness to keep his distance from the newsroom.
In 2021, I applied to become executive editor and asked Bezos to recommit to what I called “the three no’s.” He had never been shown an article before publication; he had never criticized a story we had done; he had never pressured us to report any particular story. I was gratified when Bezos told me he would maintain this restraint.
As disappointed as I was not to get the top job, I was proud to continue working for an institution that I adored and an owner I respected. I stepped down in June 2023, but resumed my affiliation with the organization last year from my new home in England, working on contract, editing investigative stories and coaching some editors. But last week I informed the current leadership that I would end my association with the Post. Bezos’ interference in editorial matters and his public conduct in recent months prompted my decision.
Last October, Bezos ended the Post’s longstanding practice of endorsing a presidential candidate. Many readers rely on trusted news media to do the hard work of sorting fact from fiction and assessing what voters should consider when choosing candidates. While owners are entitled to control a publication’s editorial voice, the decision to kill the editorial board’s endorsement of Kamala Harris – already drafted – 11 days before the vote was an abdication of journalistic responsibility.
Soon after, Bezos showered public congratulations on Donald Trump and was seated prominently on the dais at the second inauguration – indications to me that Bezos no longer believes he needs to maintain an appropriate distance from the presidency to safeguard the independence of an institution whose purpose is to hold power to account.
Last week, another Bezos decision struck once again at the credibility of the paper’s opinion pages. “We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets,” Bezos wrote in his announcement. “Viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.” The preemptive censorship of a historically robust range of opinions prompted David Shipley, the editorial page editor, to resign. It was my breaking point, too.
I can only speculate why Bezos has pivoted so sharply in his stewardship of the Post. During the first Trump presidency he never flinched in the face of personal and professional attacks by Trump, prompted by the president’s anger over Post coverage. Bezos may now have had enough of all that.
Many accomplished and prize-winning reporters, columnists and editors have left the Post in recent months, worried about the intentions of its owner and the viability of independent journalism at an institution that has long stood for exactly that. The news report still shines, providing penetrating and vigorous coverage of the tumultuous beginning of Trump’s second term, and the opinion writers carry on, undeterred by the owner’s intrusions. But the Post’s credibility is unmistakably weakened.
A wall in the Post newsroom displays a quote from Jeff Bezos: “I strongly believe that missionaries make better products. They care more. For a missionary, it’s not just about the business. There has to be a business, and the business has to make sense, but that’s not why you do it. You do it because you have something more meaningful that motivates you.”
Those words couldn’t be truer, and for journalists that mission is to seek out the truth courageously, regardless of who holds power – and to refuse to be silenced by commercial or political constraints. Perhaps the time has come for Bezos to sell The Washington Post to someone who will allow its missionaries to do their jobs.
Soon after Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon.com, acquired The Washington Post for $250 million in 2013, he assured its editors and reporters – myself included – that he would give us the freedom to do our jobs and “follow the story” without interference from him.
At a 2016 Washington Post tech forum with Marty Baron, who was then executive editor, Bezos quoted a phrase he had heard from the legendary Watergate reporter Bob Woodward: “Democracy dies in darkness.”
It was a perfect motto to advertise the mission of one of America’s most storied and respected news organizations – a newspaper that has won 76 Pulitzer Prizes since 1936 – and herald the new ownership of a company that had been run by one family for 80 years. When “Democracy Dies in Darkness” debuted as the Post’s motto in February 2017, a month into the first Donald Trump presidency, the organization had to endure some light teasing for its apparent self-seriousness. Late night comedian Stephen Colbert quipped that the rejected phrases included "No, You Shut Up" and "Come at Me, Bro." Joking aside, the slogan captured the crucial and symbiotic relationship between a free press and a healthy democracy.
Readers embraced what it said about the Post’s practice of rigorous, tough-minded journalism. So did the newsroom. Bezos wanted pithy words worthy of printing on T-shirts – and sales were brisk. On Fridays, sometimes half the staff at the morning news meeting showed up wearing this mission statement.
In journalism, as in so much of life, mission is everything. It’s what gets you up in the morning, it’s what rights the wrongs and it’s also what builds the business. At the Post, that mission has long been the scrutiny of power – showing how leaders acquire it, revealing when they abuse it and illuminating the consequences of its use and misuse.
America’s founders sought to protect this function when they ratified the First Amendment, writing that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press. The Post, like other U.S. media outlets, is able to do its important work thanks to those constitutional protections from government interference. But Bezos’ recent actions and decisions as owner are undermining the Post’s mission and eroding its ability to hold power to account.
I spent 19 years at the Post, including nearly eight as managing editor for news and features and then senior managing editor, working for Baron and his successor, Sally Buzbee. For three months between their tenures, I was acting executive editor. During those years, I admired Bezos for his willingness to keep his distance from the newsroom.
In 2021, I applied to become executive editor and asked Bezos to recommit to what I called “the three no’s.” He had never been shown an article before publication; he had never criticized a story we had done; he had never pressured us to report any particular story. I was gratified when Bezos told me he would maintain this restraint.
As disappointed as I was not to get the top job, I was proud to continue working for an institution that I adored and an owner I respected. I stepped down in June 2023, but resumed my affiliation with the organization last year from my new home in England, working on contract, editing investigative stories and coaching some editors. But last week I informed the current leadership that I would end my association with the Post. Bezos’ interference in editorial matters and his public conduct in recent months prompted my decision.
Last October, Bezos ended the Post’s longstanding practice of endorsing a presidential candidate. Many readers rely on trusted news media to do the hard work of sorting fact from fiction and assessing what voters should consider when choosing candidates. While owners are entitled to control a publication’s editorial voice, the decision to kill the editorial board’s endorsement of Kamala Harris – already drafted – 11 days before the vote was an abdication of journalistic responsibility.
Soon after, Bezos showered public congratulations on Donald Trump and was seated prominently on the dais at the second inauguration – indications to me that Bezos no longer believes he needs to maintain an appropriate distance from the presidency to safeguard the independence of an institution whose purpose is to hold power to account.
Last week, another Bezos decision struck once again at the credibility of the paper’s opinion pages. “We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets,” Bezos wrote in his announcement. “Viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.” The preemptive censorship of a historically robust range of opinions prompted David Shipley, the editorial page editor, to resign. It was my breaking point, too.
I can only speculate why Bezos has pivoted so sharply in his stewardship of the Post. During the first Trump presidency he never flinched in the face of personal and professional attacks by Trump, prompted by the president’s anger over Post coverage. Bezos may now have had enough of all that.
Many accomplished and prize-winning reporters, columnists and editors have left the Post in recent months, worried about the intentions of its owner and the viability of independent journalism at an institution that has long stood for exactly that. The news report still shines, providing penetrating and vigorous coverage of the tumultuous beginning of Trump’s second term, and the opinion writers carry on, undeterred by the owner’s intrusions. But the Post’s credibility is unmistakably weakened.
A wall in the Post newsroom displays a quote from Jeff Bezos: “I strongly believe that missionaries make better products. They care more. For a missionary, it’s not just about the business. There has to be a business, and the business has to make sense, but that’s not why you do it. You do it because you have something more meaningful that motivates you.”
Those words couldn’t be truer, and for journalists that mission is to seek out the truth courageously, regardless of who holds power – and to refuse to be silenced by commercial or political constraints. Perhaps the time has come for Bezos to sell The Washington Post to someone who will allow its missionaries to do their jobs.
