WaPo keeps digging a deeper hole. Plus, out of the pool. And, this land is your land.
By Gary Abernathy
The Washington Post is in a hole, but its writers and reporters think the solution is to keep digging
Earlier this week, Jeff Bezos, Amazon founder and Washington Post owner, issued a stunning announcement in which he declared that from now on the Post would be writing every day on its opinion pages “in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets.”
Here’s his post on X:
I’m writing to let you know about a change coming to our opinion pages.
We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.
There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job.
I am of America and for America, and proud to be so. Our country did not get here by being typical. And a big part of America’s success has been freedom in the economic realm and everywhere else. Freedom is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical — it drives creativity, invention, and prosperity.
I offered David Shipley, whom I greatly admire, the opportunity to lead this new chapter. I suggested to him that if the answer wasn’t “hell yes,” then it had to be “no.” After careful consideration, David decided to step away. This is a significant shift, it won’t be easy, and it will require 100% commitment — I respect his decision. We’ll be searching for a new Opinion Editor to own this new direction.
I’m confident that free markets and personal liberties are right for America. I also believe these viewpoints are underserved in the current market of ideas and news opinion. I’m excited for us together to fill that void.
It makes me wonder where this Jeff Bezos has been for the past decade or so. But it’s nice that he finally arrived.
After spending years basically being hands off in regard to the Post — both editorially and in regard to spending, when money seemed to be no object — Bezos has been signaling his renewed involvement for a couple of years now, beginning when he ordered significant cuts in 2023, and then just before the November 2024 election, when Bezos decreed that no presidential endorsement would be made.
After Trump’s victory, Bezos no doubt sent most Post staffers into conniption fits by declaring, “I’m actually very optimistic this time around. He (Trump) seems to have a lot of energy around reducing regulation. If I can help do that, I’m going to help him. We do have too many regulations in this country.”
Shortly thereafter, panicky Post staffers demanded answers from Bezos:
Over 400 staff members at the Washington Post have sent a letter to Jeff Bezos asking for a meeting with him during a time of widespread concern about the future of the newspaper.
The letter, signed by top journalists and correspondents and sent on Tuesday evening, pleads for Bezos, who is known to rarely visit the Post’s office in Washington, to meet in person with leaders at the office.
“We are deeply alarmed by recent leadership decisions that have led readers to question the integrity of this institution, broken with a tradition of transparency, and prompted some of our most distinguished colleagues to leave, with more departures imminent,” the letter reads. NPR first reported the letter.
During this 2024-25 period, Bezos has noted the declining trust in the media — including the Post — and the need to do things differently.
With all this handwriting on the wall, you would think that Post editors and writers would get the message and perhaps adjust their approach. But this being an age where employees think they call the shots, the opposite has happened. On the news side, Trump-hating stories and headlines continue practically hourly. On the opinion side, far-left opinion pieces far outweigh the handful of columns that occasionally appear to defend Trump or his administration’s actions.
Bezos has dropped the first shoe on the opinion side, albeit a little heavy-handedly even for this conservative’s tastes. I completely disagree with Bezos’ decree that the time has passed “to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views.”
I don’t agree that the internet provides that now — the internet provides opinion through algorithms that inundate readers with their preferred viewpoints and no others. A robust opinion section covering many points of view is still the ideal opinion section, and that’s what the late and lamented Fred Hiatt (and deputy Ruth Marcus) sought to bring to the Post during his 20 years of leadership prior to his untimely passing in December of 2021. So diverse were the Post’s opinion writers (a roster which included yours truly from 2017-2023) that liberal readers often complained how “conservative” the Post’s opinion pages were.
David Shipley, who eventually took over the opinion section (and whose career included stints at the New Republic, the New York Times and Bloomberg View) seemed to me not to embrace Hiatt’s vision, and the opinion section has seemed more and more dominated by far-left and anti-Trump voices. It is not surprising that Shipley chose to leave rather than try to carry out Bezos’ new directive.
But it is on the news side where Bezos really needs to make significant changes. The Post seems to be in a contest with the beyond-hope New York Times in producing daily headlines attacking all things Trump.
As of this writing, here’s a random sampling of headlines appearing Thursday afternoon under the Post’s section heading “Trump Presidency”:
A fired federal worker grapples with her vote for Trump
In Canada’s auto capital, uncertainty and hurt feelings amid Trump’s threats
Analysis: How many Trump voters regret their vote?
Analysis: Trump’s push against foreign tech rules could backfire, critics say
Analysis: Is what DOGE doing even legal?
There are headlines that are more neutral in tone, such as “U.K.’s Starmer set to meet with Trump in Oval Office today,” but there’s nothing that could be called positive to be found.
On Wednesday, the Post focused a lengthy article on this pressing subject: “How Trump’s mostly White Cabinet compares with others.”
The Post explains in a note, “Follow live updates on the Trump administration. We’re tracking President Donald Trump’s actions by day, his progress on campaign promises, and legal challenges to his executive orders and actions.”
Of course, there was no such targeted tracking of President Biden’s actions day by day, executive actions or legal challenges, just as the Post’s infamous counting of presidential “lies and misleading statements” during Trump’s first term came to an end when Biden became president.
As one politically savvy acquaintance rightfully pointed out, reforming the Post may be a case of too little, too late.
“The Post will be ever less impactful … and less successful. It will lose its base, but its entrenched political image will curtail converts,” he predicted.
In other words, the Post has been a far-left mouthpiece for so long that changing now will just alienate the far-left readers who support it, while conservatives and center-right consumers will never trust it no matter what it does now.
It’s a shame for a once-great newspaper, just as it’s a shame for the New York Times to have voluntarily squandered its credibility over the years. But it’s why alternative media has risen and is, in fact, more trusted than “legacy” media.
A press corps handpicked by Trump will result in coverage similar to how Biden was covered by the usual press corps
Unsurprisingly, legacy media types are aghast that the Trump administration is deciding the composition of the press pool that can cover Trump in settings where space considerations limit the number of people who can be in smaller environments, such as the Oval Office.
Traditionally, the White House Correspondents Association has decided the makeup of the press pool. As the Washington Post’s Amber Phillips put it, “…experts say that this type of interference is a big step toward the government controlling the flow of information and, eventually, the rest of society.”
The complaint is that Trump will primarily allow friendly media types to make up the press pool, resulting in fewer “tough” questions or less pushback when Trump lies.
The sad reality is that a press pool handpicked by Trump will, by and large, result in exactly the kind of coverage Joe Biden — or any other Democrat president — received from the traditional press corps. The difference in how far-left (formerly mainstream) reporters cover Trump versus Biden is the difference between covering a buddy (Biden) and covering an enemy (Trump).
If legacy media hadn’t become such a leftwing tool, it would be easier to feel outrage over the decision to limit their access to Trump. But their high-minded complaints about “press freedom” and their performative worries about “authoritarianism” are exercises in misdirection. Their real panic is that their power is waning and they’re losing their longtime status as preferred customers. They want to keep being the big shots. They’re not anymore.
The fact is, most events that take place in the Oval Office, for instance, are highly staged. They are usually things like bill signings and handshakes and orchestrated photo ops. There is seldom any real news that comes out of them. Not being included amounts to little more than losing your front row seat at a Broadway show.
We need skeptical coverage of our political leaders. That barely exists from the far-left (formerly mainstream) media, which covers Democrats fawningly (covering up for Biden’s senility) and Republicans like the enemy (all their Trump coverage). There is no in-between anymore.
The legacy media has forfeited their right to complain about their treatment by Republicans.
We acknowledge that someone ruled this land before someone else ruled it, and that could happen again today
The notion that some countries were “stolen” from their original inhabitants is a popular concept in today’s world, coupled with the suggestion that whoever ended up with it should feel guilty, generations later. Increasingly, current ruling inhabitants of a growing number of countries are being intimidated or guilt-tripped into acknowledging the fact that someone else was there first.
Tim Walz, the Minnesota governor who served as Kamala Harris’ running mate in the recent presidential election, has been a leader in the U.S. in making sure government meetings open by acknowledging how terrible he and his government really are.
Government meetings in Minnesota often begin with someone reading from a card that says some variation of the following:
“Today, it is of utmost importance that we all recognize the land we are living and working on is stolen land from our Native American relatives. We must seek to understand our place within that history and use that understanding to work towards justice.”
By whatever term is used to describe them — Native Americans (in the U.S.), or Indigenous Peoples or First Nations Peoples — apologizing to whomever has been determined, as accurately as possible, as having been there first has become a cause du jour for the politically correct.
To be clear, no one alive today had anything to do with events that happened a century, or several centuries, ago. Whether you happen to be the generational beneficiary or victim of those events, no words — no acknowledgments, no apologies — hold any real significance. We were all born accidentally into whatever circumstance existed at the time of our birth. Whatever came before us was not of our making.
Almost everywhere around the globe, land has changed hands, sometimes multiple times. The idea of “ownership” was not always the case; land was merely occupied. Could it therefore have even been “stolen” at all? In many cases, probably not. Other people, in greater numbers or with more advanced weapons, decided to occupy it as well, which, in some cases, led to the original occupants being displaced.
Sometimes land is bartered for. Other times, it is taken by force. In country after country, land has been taken from one group by another group. From the 1400s through the early 1900s, historians say “Europeans” conquered or colonized more than 80 percent of the world.
Was it always fair? Probably not. Was it cruel? Quite often.
I respect those who disagree on this subject, and who think acknowledgements of indigenous people should be made. If that’s the side you’re on, you’re winning the day — and I acknowledge that. Congratulations.
Is there anything wrong with making sure people can preserve their cultural identity and honor past traditions? There is not.
But let’s agree on this: Good things, great things, often result from imperfect beginnings, the United States of America being one of them — the greatest and freest nation on earth, as imperfect as its origins and history may be.
In country after country, here is what acknowledgments on the subject would include if they were to be grounded in reality and not just performative political correctness:
“While we acknowledge that there was someone occupying and ruling this land before someone else took control of it, either by negotiation or by force, we also acknowledge that if we are not vigilant enough, or if our defenses are not strong enough, someone will come along and take this land away from us, and occupy and rule it in our stead.”
Because, right or wrong, fairly or unfairly, that is the way the world works.
Random thoughts on this and that …
The New York Times this week produced this gem: “How Can Europe Talk to Trump? Flatter, Then Gently Resist.” While it was an effort to once again paint Trump in a harsh light, the fact is, flattering people is a page right out of “Relationships 101” when dealing with just about anyone. Flattery, complimenting people on an accomplishment, etc., is a tried-and-true way to slide into some criticism or a suggestion that there might be a different road to travel. It’s not a unique tactic to use on Trump. It’s good advice when dealing with anyone with whom you might have differences. …
… As part of its ongoing effort to discredit the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the Associated Press produced this headline: “Nearly 40% of contracts cancelled by Musk’s DOGE are expected to produce no savings.” Hmmm. So the headline could have been, “About 60% of contracts cancelled by Musk’s DOGE are expected to produce savings.” Since 60% is a bigger number than 40%, it would have been logical, and more honest, to highlight that point. But no. Today, our legacy media is firmly on the side of the entrenched bureaucracy and openly contemptuous of anyone identifying and eliminating waste and fraud. It’s amazing. …
… As of this writing, authorities were investigating the cause of the mysterious deaths of actor Gene Hackman, his wife, and a pet dog. Hackman, 95, was one of the great character actors of modern times. His favorite performances of mine range from the basketball coach in “Hoosiers” to the sheriff in “Unforgiven” to the blind hermit in “Young Frankenstein.” But those favorites aside, if I saw his name in the credits, I considered it a movie worth watching. A sad day. …
… Staying with the celebrity theme, news came this week that a Missouri woman pled guilty to a federal charge connected with a plot to defraud the Elvis Presley estate by attempting to force an auction of Graceland to satisfy a fake loan.
The AP reported that Lisa Jeanine Findley “falsely claimed Presley’s daughter borrowed $3.8 million from a bogus private lender and had pledged Graceland as collateral for the loan before her death in January 2023, prosecutors said when she was charged in August 2024. She then threatened to sell Graceland to the highest bidder if Presley’s family didn’t pay a $2.85 million settlement, according to authorities.”
It was an amazingly brazen plan, one so transparent that it was never taken seriously from day one. Just one more bizarre twist in the colorful life and afterlife of Elvis Presley.
‘MAGA Republicans Are Already Normal’ — for yourself or for that friend or loved one confused about the election
“MAGA Republicans Are Already Normal — And Other Shocking Notions” is a great addition to the library of MAGA Trump supporters, or the perfect gift for non-MAGA friends and loved ones to help them make sense of the 2024 election results. It’s available on Amazon. Buy it here.
The book (actually much thicker than the illustrations above indicate — the hardcover and paperback are each 453 pages) is a compilation of many of the nearly 200 columns I wrote for the Washington Post from 2017 to 2023 (and a handful of columns I wrote about Trump for The (Hillsboro) Times-Gazette from 2015 to 2017). The columns cover a variety of topics, but they particularly focus on Trump’s rise to political prominence and help explain his appeal.
Here’s a link to a website dedicated to the book.
Sign up or share this newsletter
Please sign up to receive this newsletter directly into your inbox or, if you are already a subscriber and reading this by email, share with a friend using the convenient button below. Thank you!
Interesting - enjoy your writings each week.. just took your book over to daughter to read..