When Jeff Bezos, the billionaire owner of The Washington Post, announced his decision not to endorse a candidate in the upcoming presidential race, the reaction was swift and telling. Critics, both within and outside the organization, swiftly condemned it as a dereliction of journalistic duty. But in their haste to cry foul, the reaction from within the Post itself made Bezos’s point for him.
Here, we see the real issue with the current media landscape laid bare. Post journalists, in their dissent, have exposed the unmistakable partisanship and ideological entrenchment within their profession. By claiming that endorsing a candidate is key to journalistic integrity, they expose the very biases they claim to transcend.
The uproar begs the question: How can an institution like The Washington Post present itself as an objective observer when those reporting the news are so obviously committed to one side and openly hostile to the other? The breakdown at the Post is a symptom of a larger issue—one that involves the failure to maintain clear and unambiguous lines of demarcation between news reporting and commentary. Newsrooms, particularly in legacy media, have increasingly blurred these lines. Where objective reporting once held pride of place, today’s newsrooms are marked by opinion bleeding into headlines, advocacy finding its way into stories, and journalists openly staking political positions. This is no accident—it arises from a media culture that prioritizes ideology over impartiality. No wonder public trust in the media has eroded.
In truth, partisan news gathering has its place, and there is nothing inherently wrong with it—provided it operates openly and honestly. The problem arises when publications like The Washington Post continue to wave the banner of objectivity while engaging in clear ideological advocacy. For too long, the legacy media ecosystem and its denizens have tried to straddle both worlds, attempting to have their cake and eat it too.
There is nothing wrong with advocacy, but it belongs in the realm of commentary, clearly distinguished from the objective reporting of facts. Bezos’s decision to avoid an endorsement was not merely a personal preference—it was a calculated move to reassert the newspaper’s commitment to journalism’s fundamental principles. It acknowledged the need to rebuild trust by avoiding overt partisanship in what should be a bastion of neutral reporting. Yet, in refusing to endorse, Bezos inadvertently exposed just how intertwined advocacy and reporting have become in today’s media.
Post critics view Bezos’s decision as a failure of leadership, but they miss the point. In a for-profit organization like The Washington Post, owned by Mr. Bezos, the ultimate decisions on editorial policy and direction rest with him. It is his responsibility to set the boundaries for what his publication will and will not do. If Post employees disagree with his approach, the marketplace of ideas remains wide open. There is nothing preventing them from pursuing their vision elsewhere. In a free market, if there is a demand for their brand of journalism, there is a way to make it thrive.
The backlash at the Post reveals a media elite increasingly out of touch with its audience, stubbornly clinging to a model in terminal decline. This is the inevitable result of existing cocooned inside an echo chamber, where dissent is met not with debate, but with derision. Rather than self-reflect and adapt, legacy media outlets like the Post double down on their orthodoxy.
As traditional media falters under the weight of its identity crisis, the need for a new model of journalism becomes undeniable.
At The American Salient, we aspire to be part of a new era of journalism—one that is responsive to the needs of our audience and committed to the principles of clarity, transparency, and truth. We recognize that journalism must evolve to meet the challenges of a changing media landscape, and we aim to rise to that challenge by offering content that is insightful, compelling, and rooted in a respect for the intelligence of our readers.
Our goal is not to replace the legacy media but to build something new—a platform that elevates the discourse and offers thoughtful perspectives on the issues that matter most. We seek to create a space where diverse voices can contribute to an open dialogue, and where readers can find both original content and well-curated pieces from a variety of sources. In doing so, we aim to provide a broader and richer understanding of the world around us.
We know that change will not happen overnight, but we are committed to doing the arduous work of building trust and offering something different. At The American Salient, we believe in a future where media can both inform and inspire, where facts are distinguishable from opinions, and where readers receive the respect they deserve.
The internal reaction to Bezos’s decision reveals the real crisis facing The Washington Post and similar outlets. The loudest critics are not angry because Bezos erred—they are furious because he exposed their biases to the world. They see the writing on the wall and fear what it means for their profession. But change is inevitable, and those who refuse to adapt will be left behind.
In the coming years, the challenge for all of us in the media is to resist the siren call of partisanship and maintain our credibility by being transparent with our readers. For too long, legacy media outlets have feigned objectivity while pushing a thinly veiled agenda. It is no wonder trust in the media is at historic lows. The American people are not fools; they know when they are being played.
In contrast, The American Salient is driven by a vision to restore trust in journalism through principled reporting and clear lines between news and opinion. We embrace the diversity of ideas and aim to build a platform that welcomes rigorous debate. Our mission is not simply to provide content, but to inspire a new standard for what journalism can be.
While Bezos’s decision sparked outrage in progressive circles, it reminds the rest of us the media’s mission is to resist both internal and external pressures. Media should serve readers by presenting the facts and respecting their intelligence. The greatest threat to legacy media is not external criticism—it is internal rot. And if those still clinging to the old order cannot see that, they will, in time, become relics of a bygone era.
Charlton Allen is the founder and editor-in-chief of The American Salient and the founder of the Madison Center for Law & Liberty, Inc. Learn more about him at charltonallen.org.
