Washington Post readers gathered to read Jeff Bezos’ article. essay this week defending his decision to prevent its editorial board from supporting Vice President Kamala Harris. They wanted to see his explanation of the inexplicable, to understand why he had turned off the fluorescent lighting in the newsroom of the newspaper whose banner read “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” Predictably, Bezos’s defense failed more miserably than the Union army at Fort Sumter in 1861.

The Post will not stop hemorrhaging editors and subscribers with the transparent band-aids of illogical and imperfect analogies offered by Bezos. Here are four of the most obvious errors in his essay.

“We don’t trust the media”

The setup was clear from the start, relying on an exaggerated generality: there is more distrust of the media today than ever before, and, implores Bezos, the support of a respected newspaper is part of the issue. “Endorsements,” Bezos wrote, “create a perception of…. . . non-independence. »

Please.

Let’s import a dose of reality. Bezos is essentially arguing that because there is distrust of the media, the newspaper will not support the candidate running against the man who has done more than anyone in American history to create distrust of the media. From this circular reasoning, the billionaire says in effect: “The way we are going to restore a public perception of journalistic independence is to have the owner of the newspaper step in and override the independent judgment of wise and experienced journalists on the editorial. advice.

Does the second richest man in the world miss the richness of irony? Probably not. But he seems to think we will.

He is wrong and there is proof. Post readers who abandoned their subscriptions walked their talk. They transferred their dollars – to the tune of millions of dollars – from the Post to outlets like The Guardian and The Atlantic, whose owners let their journalists do their jobs without interference. So much for informed readers who are indiscriminately suspicious of the entire media ecosystem.

The life or death of our constitutional republic hangs in the balance. The generals who served Trump I agree that it is “fascist to the core.” Trump and his allies proved it again during his replay from the 1939 fascist rally at Madison Square Garden.

So the way to move the Post up the trust scale is to not support the candidate who attacked Trump’s authoritarianism, the Democratic Party candidate who promises to preserve the Constitution?

Suppose that before the 1932 elections in Weimar, Germany, the editor of Spiegel said: “We are going to move our newspaper up the trust scale by not supporting parties that support a democratic Germany and oppose Hitler’s National Socialists. » This would not have allowed readers shouting from the rooftops that Der Spiegel had regained their trust. Nor are specious calls from an editor based on siderism in an existential election.

Supporters do nothing to tip the scales in presidential elections.

“No undecided voters in Pennsylvania”, Bezos wrote“will say: ‘I’m leaving with the approval of newspaper A.’ None.”

Maybe not. But there is a shameful cynicism at work there. »middle error excluded.” It’s not that the stamp of approval from a newspaper’s editorial board alone convinces citizens; it is the reasoning in an approval that brings them there. Approvals are part of a current of persuasion based on faith in reason.

If a publisher doesn’t believe in the persuasive power of an editorial page – in conjunction with multiple other sources – why have editorial pages? Why own a newspaper?

The only problem is the timing

Bezos admits the Post made a mistake — not by being bigfoot and blocking an endorsement, but rather by doing it so late. But when was the right time? In June? In January? In 2022? It was clear at all times that newspaper support did not tip the scales of the presidential elections. It was also clear that Trump would be (or already was) the Republican nominee for president. At one of those times, an announcement from the Post that it would not approve – previous that of the Los Angeles Times – would have provoked howls of indignation.

The truth is, the closer the election gets, the more someone like Bezos must face the possibility that Trump could win and target a wealthy publisher and his companies in retaliation. As historian Timothy Snyder said say it loud and clearit is nothing more than “obedience in advance,” surrendering our power to an authoritarian he needs to take control.

Want a daily summary of all the news and commentary the Show has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletterIntensive course.

Like Bezos wrote on blaming others for the loss of trust in the media, “complaining is not a strategy.” Nor should we blame the timing.

It’s not a question of quid pro quo.

Bezos claimed he made no deal with Trump: “Neither the campaign nor the candidate were consulted or informed in any way about this decision. »

How innocent does he think we are about the way the world works? No consultation was necessary. Bezos sees Elon Musk kiss and be kissed by Trump. Musk is the owner of SpaceX, rival of Bezos’ blue origin. Last year he spent 2 billion dollar lobbying for public procurement. Trump said he would make Musk the supervisor of “government effectiveness”.»

Bezos didn’t get where he is by being stupid. In sophisticated business transactions, corrupt negotiations rarely require words. Bezos sees the threat to his valuable rocket company and asks himself, “What can I do about this?” » The light bulb goes on to send a tacit signal to Trump.

On this statement of Bezos, we can agree: “Now more than ever, the world needs a credible, reliable and independent voice? However, the way to achieve this is not through blatantly bogus defenses. transparent cowardice. Truth is the only basis for trust. Jeff Bezos’s defense failed, and so did the light diary he owns.