Robert Gamer: Author & Activist

Anyone harboring doubts about Jeff Bezos’s influence over The Washington Post’s editorial direction would do well to revisit history—specifically, the precedent set by William Randolph Hearst, whose manipulation of public sentiment helped trigger the Spanish-American War.

As publisher of the New York Journal, Hearst famously used sensationalist headlines and fabricated stories to promote pro-war fervor. The narrative surrounding the sinking of the USS Maine—a prime example of yellow journalism—helped galvanize a military response based more on manufactured outrage than on fact. In many ways, the Spanish-American War marked the first major conflict significantly fueled by media intervention. Hearst was not alone in this; he operated in ideological lockstep with then–Assistant Secretary of the Navy Theodore Roosevelt, an early architect of American expansionism.

It is precisely to prevent such abuses that the freedom of the press is enshrined in the First Amendment. A misinformed public is the hallmark of tyranny. In the antebellum South, literacy among enslaved people was outlawed. In Nazi Germany, books were burned to enforce ideological conformity. In modern-day Russia, state-controlled media silences dissent. And throughout history, journalists who seek to publish uncomfortable truths have often paid with their lives.

It is within this context that Jeff Bezos’s overhaul of the Washington Post opinion section must be examined. According to internal reports, a column by veteran journalist Ruth Marcus that critiqued Bezos’s editorial policy—allegedly narrowing acceptable opinion content to “personal issues” and free-market topics—was killed by publisher William Lewis, reportedly acting on Bezos’s directive. It was the first time in her two-decade tenure that one of her pieces was spiked. Marcus resigned in protest, stating that the decision undermined the Post’s longstanding reputation for editorial independence.

A separate column endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris for president was also reportedly killed. Whether these editorial choices represent ideological censorship or routine editorial discretion is a matter of debate. But they contrast sharply with the Post’s historic role in holding power to account—from its Watergate reporting under publisher Katharine Graham and editor Ben Bradlee, to its work on the Pentagon Papers, which revealed unauthorized surveillance by the National Security Agency.

Now, under Bezos—whom some critics have likened to a modern-day Hearst—the Post appears to be moving away from its watchdog legacy, curbing dissenting voices that clash with the views of its ownership or the current political climate.

In authoritarian regimes, media outlets often serve as instruments of state propaganda. Consider Fox News, a major source of information for the MAGA base, which recently agreed to a $787.5 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems over its role in promoting false claims about the 2020 election. Critics argue that Fox functions less as a news organization and more as a political mouthpiece.

In curtailing editorial freedom at The Washington Post, Bezos may be treading a similar path—exerting quiet yet decisive influence that compromises journalistic independence.

With a net worth of approximately $221 billion, Bezos ranks as the world’s second-richest person, according to Forbes. But his wealth accumulation shows no signs of slowing. Blue Origin, his aerospace firm, recently secured a contract with the U.S. Space Force to develop the New Glenn launch vehicle—another potential gold mine.

Bezos also maintained close ties with the Trump administration. Amazon donated $1 million to Trump’s 2017 inauguration and, according to The Irish Times, paid $40 million for a Melania Trump documentary, from which the former first lady stands to earn $28 million. The company also holds rights to reruns of The Apprentice. These moves suggest, at minimum, an effort to maintain favor across political lines.

There is nothing inherently wrong with profit-making. But problems arise when that pursuit comes at the expense of public interest. Historical examples abound—companies like Mercedes-Benz, Bayer (a member of the IG Farben cartel), and Volkswagen profited under the Nazi regime. While the comparison is severe, it serves to illustrate how corporate ambition, when unchecked by ethics, can drift into dangerous territory.

With Bezos at the helm, The Washington Post risks becoming less a beacon of truth and more a corporate megaphone. And when freedom of the press becomes a casualty of business interests, democracy is not far behind.