On Bezos’s Bold Step
The American Media is Worth Defending, Despite its Flaws
Take a few minutes to read Jeff Bezos’s op-ed in the Washington Post. Mr. Bezos, who owns the paper, comes across as balanced and self-reflective. He addresses a critical issue that extends beyond the media to affect the very fabric of the Western world: the rapid erosion of public trust. As he writes, “Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.” This insight led to Mr. Bezos’s decision to end political endorsements at the Post, a small yet meaningful step toward restoring credibility.
Many, particularly on the right, celebrate the mainstream media’s loss of credibility—yet this response is ultimately self-destructive. It’s easy to criticize the media for its mistakes, but any serious critique must ask: compared to what? And what would become of an informed society if we abandoned the press for other, less reliable sources? Mr. Bezos draws an insightful analogy: just as voting machines must both “count the vote accurately” and be trusted to count accurately, “we must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate.”
Trust, he argues, is as fundamental as truth itself. This credibility—the public’s faith in journalism—underpins any institution’s authority to shape public debate. Yet, too many would rather reduce the media to a polarized echo chamber—MSNBC for liberals, Fox News for conservatives—than engage in genuine reform. Keep it as is. I believe that this apathy and our present status quo would inaugurate the death of our Republic, and we need not accept this reality; constructive criticism and dedicated engagement can restore the American media’s reputation—a reputation that, when balanced against its detractors, deserves preservation.
Now, the mainstream media did make a series of high-profile errors, and it’s easy to list these—Russiagate, the dangers of COVID, the merit of lockdowns, and the authenticity of Hunter Biden's laptop—without recognizing that, as an institution, the media has performed far better than its alternatives. Despite these errors, traditional media operates with a structured approach to accountability and factual integrity—qualities rare among its freewheeling competitors. Richard Hanania made this very case in a compelling defense published early last year. His argument remains one of the most convincing, well-articulated cases for the American media’s survival.
Social media platforms and influencer-driven news sources claim to reveal the “real” truth, often without corroboration or editorial standards. Unchecked misinformation can have stark consequences. We saw this in the 2020 election cycle when an alternative media ecosystem fueled conspiracies around election fraud, fracturing public trust in the democratic process. By 2023, an estimated 70% of right-leaning Americans believed in the illegitimacy of Joe Biden’s victory.1
To understand the path forward, we must acknowledge the dual responsibility that lies with both the media and the public it serves and the importance of separating reporting from opinion. For the press, this means re-evaluating the conventions that create bias, as Mr. Bezos argued candidate endorsements did. Ending them is a move he called “a principled decision, and… the right one.” He elaborates: “Presidential endorsements…create a perception of bias…a perception of non-independence.” Removing this practice from the capital’s most trusted paper of record reflects the Washington Post’s shift from opinionated partisanship to impartial, rigorous journalism that seeks to inform rather than persuade.
One idea that could build on this shift is for the Post editors to list the policy planks of the Republican and Democratic candidates, side by side, so that readers are given a case for both, thus arriving at their own conclusion. In covering presidential elections, it is far more important to offer objective information rather than opinion so that readers are empowered to make informed decisions. It’s a concept that may come to fruition as Mr. Bezos, per reporting by the New York Post, has given the paper a mandate to hire conservative opinion columnists—another welcome development and one that will enrich the quality of the paper ten-fold.
I won’t conflate the importance of this newsletter, whose audience, importance, and quality of reporting is, bluntly, pitiful in comparison to the Washington Post, but I’ve striven to maintain transparency regarding my conservative perspective. Rightwise has always prioritized accuracy, disclosed its bias, and encouraged contributions from opposing viewpoints to avoid a pure echo chamber. The fact that the majority of readers who engage with my content hail from the opposite end of the political spectrum reinforces my mission of constructive discourse.
Abandoning mainstream media in favor of alternatives would endanger the informed society on which our way of life depends. When we read a story in The New York Times or the Washington Post, we’re engaging with institutions that, despite flaws, possess the capacity for correction, accountability, and adaptation. The media’s future depends not on its critics but on a public willing to demand high standards while recognizing the vital role it plays. As Mr. Bezos put it, “The stakes are too high.” Now more than ever, we need a “credible, trusted, independent voice” that remains a cornerstone of democratic life, ensuring public trust and accurate information as a bedrock of an informed society.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/03/politics/cnn-poll-republicans-think-2020-election-illegitimate/index.html