Tag Archives: Bezos

WAPO, Your Bezos Is Showing

2 Replies

It didn’t take long for the Washington Post to launch a hysterical attack on the choice of the voters in New York City who, apparently tired of the way things have been run, chose convincingly between the options presented to them by the democratic process there. Zohran Mamdani drops the mask  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/11/08/zohran-mamdani-class-warfare-new-york-mayor/  I suppose this is not surprising after Jeff Bezos stopped the paper from endorsing Kamala Harris in the 2024 presidential race. Still, this is the Washington Post, once venerated as one of the leading independent (remember Watergate?) news sources in the country and, indeed, the world.

No more. It’s now apparent that its owner has completely coopted the so-called Editorial Board and revealed his and its acquiescence in the fascist model of government promoted by Donald Trump. Bezos has a lot of money, so he probably doesn’t care much what happens to the paper as it is abandoned by many of its leading thinkers and many also of its subscribers. It is interesting how individuals who amass vast fortunes become indifferent to the needs and wants of the people whose patronage created those fortunes.

Mr. Bezos has aligned himself, and his newspaper, with Donald Trump, a man who has no respect for the Constitution he swore to uphold, no respect for anything that does not serve his personal interests. The Post’s Editorial Board (EB) has now gone full Trump by attacking the choice made by the voters of New York City. The EB apparently no longer believes in democracy. Maybe it’s time for the Post to change its name to reflect what it now represents. The paper’s motto still says, “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” But the lights are out at the Post now, and it is dark indeed.

Consider what the EB has said about the choice of New York City’s voters.

They opened by calling him “Generalissimo,” a reference typically applied (though not exclusively) to fascists and dictators. Donald Trump loves to call opponents names and the Post’s EB has apparently gone full in on Trump’s approach. The Post’s EB must be terrified. I watched the same acceptance speech that it did. I saw a young man relishing his hard-earned victory (you don’t win in New York politics the easy way but remember the wisdom of Sinatra: if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere).

I am not going to waste a good Monday with chapter-and-verse discussion of the Post’s new-found discovery that less government is the solution to New York’s (and presumably everyone’s) problems. Note, however, that whoever watched the acceptance speech at the Post failed to note how often Mamdani smiled, how often he spoke of using the power of government to help the general population of the city. Now, suddenly, the Post’s EB has become the voice of the “small government is the best government” crowd while whining that Mamdani mentioned Donald Trump eight times but didn’t utter “growth” even once. The people at the Heritage Foundation must be ecstatic. And it is a fundamental mistake to believe that Donald Trump is an adherent of “small government.” Trump’s “philosophy” is that of the prototypical dictator: “the government is me.” Size is irrelevant.

It is a fundamental truth that humans often hear what they want to hear. That principle applied to the Post’s EB as it listened to Mamdani’s speech. What seems most clear in all this is that the Post editors are terrified that the people of New York City have chosen someone whom the editors don’t trust because they don’t know him. They apparently have not been paying enough attention and now that the people of New York City have spoken, the EB is panicked.

The ”observers” at the Post apparently missed the part of Mamdani’s acceptance speech in which he spoke eloquently about his election being a victory for those “so often forgotten by the politics of our city.” He spoke the importance of keeping hope alive, a vital tenet at a time when hungry people are being cut off from their daily bread by a hostile president who is now threatening the city and Mamdani personally. Trump threatens to punish NYC over Mamdani. Will he arrest new mayor and block funds? https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/11/08/trump-threat-nyc-mayor-mamdani/87133111007/?utm_source=usatoday-newsalert-strada&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_term=hero&utm_content=usat-mclean-nletter01

Trump’s blather aside, perhaps hope comes first and growth follows.

The only real alternative was former governor Andrew Cuomo. I happen to appreciate some aspects of Cuomo’s service as New York’s governor. I wrote about it here: https://shiningseausa.com/2020/05/01/governor-andrew-cuomo-presents/ but also here: https://shiningseausa.com/2023/06/04/appalling-failure-great-city/ It is also true that I was deeply disappointed to learn of the accusations against him from multiple women whose complaints I fully credit. It’s too bad, but it is what it is. Cuomo created his own trouble and paid the price. If the same principles were applied to Donald Trump, he would be sitting in a prison cell right now.

Mr. Cuomo lost the Democratic primary to Mr. Mamdani, ran against him as an independent, and lost again. The people of New York City made their choice in a free and fair election, something that should be respected. Instead, the Post’s EB chose to suck up to Jeff Bezos and, make no mistake, to Donald Trump whose last-minute endorsement of Cuomo failed badly. What the Post’s EB hopes to achieve from this hatchet job on the voters of New York (Mamdani was their clear choice), I can’t imagine.

Finally, compare the approach taken by the New York Times in an opinion piece more appropriately entitled: 6 Ways Mayor Mamdani Can Improve New York https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/04/opinion/mayor-mamdani-new-york-election.html

Anyone who has lived in New York City (I did for three glorious years [including the decidedly inglorious pandemic year 2020]) and who was paying attention understands the enormous challenges the city presents to anyone trying to engineer major changes. But change is possible if bold thinking is supported. It won’t be easy, but little worth the effort is easy. Instead of whining about Mamdani’s “class consciousness,” the Washington Post would do well to remove its collective head from Donald Trump’s hindquarters and join the parade that the Democratic victories on November 2 suggested were now within reach.

This Is How It’s Done!

Leave a reply

 

The following is verbatim the published endorsement of Kamala Harris by the Seattle Times:

Hell yes! The Seattle Times edit board endorses Harris for president 

Oct. 29, 2024 at 3:53 pm

The Seattle Times editorial board endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris for president on Sept. 1. (Courtesy of the White House)

By Frank Blethen and Kate Riley

Seattle Times publisher and Times editorial page editor

As one of the country’s very few family-owned and -operated metro newspapers left, The Seattle Times is also apparently one of the few whose editorial board is willing to endorse presidential candidates. (For the record, the board, which operates independently of the newsroom, backed Vice President Kamala Harris Sept. 1.)

This is unfathomable, given that the other leading candidate clearly threatens the foundation of our 248-year-old American democracy and the rule of law.

How does it happen that someone as selfish and destructive as former President Donald Trump could actually become our president — again? After he fanned the Jan. 6 insurgency, after his felony convictions and after a civil court ruled he committed sexual assault?

One answer is the demise of local newspapers across our country.

Once the pride of rural communities and big cities alike, about half the country’s daily newspapers have been lost. Too many of the rest are inferior products being milked to death by absent mercenary investors.

Since my great-grandfather, Alden Blethen, founded The Seattle Times in 1896, the Blethen family has proudly guided The Seattle Times. Our current fourth generation has been in control since 1985.

We take our journalism and community service very seriously. We have been preparing our fifth generation for Times leadership when I step down at the end of 2025. And members of the sixth interned in our newsroom this summer.

So it is with consternation that I and editorial page editor Kate Riley learned that the publishers of two of America’s most venerable newspapers on both coasts decided not to weigh in at all, even though their editorial boards were preparing Harris endorsements.

The decisions appear to have been made by the billionaire owners — Jeff Bezos of The Washington Post and Patrick Soon-Shiong of the Los Angeles Times. That prompted protests and resignations at both papers. The reasons given were about political divisions, wanting to let voters make up their own minds and to restore public trust, according to the Columbia Journalism Review.

Bezos, founder of Amazon, explained his decision in an op-ed on the Post’s Opinion page. Read it here: st.news/bezos

“Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, ‘I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.’ None,” Bezos wrote. “What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.”

At The Times, we have a wall between the newsroom and the editorial board. Editorial writers do not ask news staff about their opinions, nor do we get involved in their coverage. We do our own reporting.

We were pleased The New York Times joined our editorial board in endorsing Kamala Harris. In fact, NYT Opinion doubled down, making a dramatic statement by filling the front of its Sunday section with just 23 words. In large, bold type, the NYT editorial board made this indictment:

DONALD TRUMP SAYS HE WILL
PROSECUTE HIS ENEMIES
ORDER MASS DEPORTATIONS
USE SOLDIERS AGAINST CITIZENS
ABANDON ALLIES
PLAY POLITICS WITH DISASTERS
BELIEVE HIM.

Trump has become shameless in his pronouncements of his plans and his denouncements of so many Americans. He can only set the country back and put our nation at risk.

The Seattle Times editorial board, and the Blethen family, enthusiastically endorse Kamala Harris.

Frank Blethen; is publisher of The Seattle Times and the great-grandson of the 128-year-old company’s founder. 

Kate Riley; is the editorial page editor at The Seattle Times: kriley@seattletimes.com; on Twitter: @k8riley.

No Sale, Mr. Bezos

Leave a reply

Jeff Bezos, owner of the Washington Post has published an “Opinion” piece defending his decision to stop endorsing presidential candidates weeks before the election. The piece was entitled, The hard truth: Americans don’t trust the news media https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/28/jeff-bezos-washington-post-trust/ He was right about that part at least.

At last look, the article had received more than 15,000 comments and growing rapidly. It has also been reported that since the Post’s announcement there have been more than 200,000 subscription cancellations, about 8 percent of the subscriber base. If so, that number likely continues to grow and may be the real and only reason Bezos has now elected to speak out.

Here was my posted comment on Bezos’ Opinion:

“The reasons for the distrust you cite seem reasonably clear. One, the Trump acolytes bought his nonsense about Fake News from his earliest days in politics. Two, papers like the Post practiced and still practice both-sides-ing critical issues. Just a day or two ago the Post promoted KellyAnne Conway speaking about abortion. You have featured Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley & a multitude of election-denying, deflecting, dishonest Republican hyper-partisans in videos and opinion pieces.

Complaints about these practices have fallen on deaf ears. Now, at the last minute, the Post departs from a practice it has followed since 1976, almost 50 years!, by refusing to endorse the presidential candidate, who, whatever her flaws, is not a convicted criminal, did not attempt to overthrow the government following the last election, and who has not declared, as Trump has, that she will only accept the 2024 outcome if she wins.

Mr. Bezos, your explanation fails on its merits because you haven’t addressed the real issue behind it and the Post’s journalistic practices. If the endorsement doesn’t influence votes, as you suggest, there is no harm in just doing what has been done. Instead, you claim to be following a principle that the paper has failed to follow since Trump emerged from the sludge of America’s lowest politics to be an attractant of attention, however misplaced. If the Post doesn’t stand up for what is right, then it stands for nothing and deserves to die.”

Upon further reflection, there are other issues with the Post owner’s Opinion. One is that the Post has endorsed a multitude of other candidates for federal and state offices. Surely Mr. Bezos is aware of that, yet he ignores it in arguing that endorsements are meaningless or worse because they sow mistrust.

The reality is that mistrust is sown by behaving in an untrustful manner. If I lie constantly, make up false stories, violate the law, demean others in racist and misogynistic ways, refuse to acknowledge science and on and on, I deserve to be distrusted. I have, of course, described Donald Trump and those who worship him. The Post’s owner dissembles when he claims, essentially, that the paper’s endorsement, and presumably therefore the endorsements of every other major paper in America, have no value but to sew distrust. He ignores the many accurate Post stories condemning Trump’s vile politics and establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that he is unfit to serve as President again.

The Post’s owner cannot have it both ways. Sadly, for our country and the world, there are many other examples of distrust that can be cited, many traceable to Trump in one way or another. I refer to the outrageous conflicts of interest of Justice Thomas and his wife, the open flaunting of religious and political bias by Justice Alito and, most recently, the worst decision in the history of the Supreme Court where it’s Trump-appointed justices held that the President of the United States may commit with “absolute immunity” crimes, including attempts to overthrow the government, as long as the crimes are committed in “discussions” with, for example only, the Justice Department. See Trump v United States, decided July 1, 2024, opinion viewable at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

Mr. Bezos’ dissembling cannot excuse or conceal what is going on here. The Post’s decision, delivered on Friday on the eve of the election, was certain to elicit the response it has and yet Mr. Bezos waited until the next Monday to speak out. This may indeed be the death knell for the Post brought about by the arrogance of wealth and indifference or even hostility to the welfare of the nation. If so, too bad. Just another casualty of the cowardice inspired by Donald Trump’s example.

No One Rules If No One Obeys

1 Reply

Reading about the disgusting decisions of the Los Angeles Times and Washington Post to withhold endorsements of presidential candidates at the behest of their billionaire owners, I was reminded of a meme I saw on, as I recall, Facebook. On the left was the face of a police officer and on the right the Guy Fawkes mask associated with Anonymous. Wikipedia describes Anonymous as

a decentralized group of anonymous online activists … a label used by high-profile hackers to make themselves unrecognizable to law enforcement as well as the public. They are associated with many online and offline protests. These protests commonly relate to freedom of speech. They often protest against … censorship.

Their tagline: “We are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.”

The meme was posted during the disruptions arising from the murder of George Floyd.

The message is apt now, especially as I read the pablum-like statement published by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein describing the Post’s decision as “surprising and disappointing.” I have only read of one resignation so far, Robert Kagan, the editor-at-large. Others are likely considering a similar step. I say: DON’T RESIGN! Not yet.

This is not the time to yield to the fascist forces of darkness without a fight.

The Post is likely dead as a journalistic force and hopefully also as a viable economic entity. Many subscribers are canceling their relationship with the paper. Ironically, I had just received an email from the Post advising of the auto-renewal next month of my own subscription. Not a chance. If the Post wants to be Fox-light, I have no interest in reading it.

Jeff Bezos’ compromise of the Post’s editorial independence will, I believe, justly be met with the destruction of his investment. He may not care, given his wealth, but his decision to align the Post with Donald Trump, and make no mistake – that is what has happened – will lead to massive disaffection of readers and, one hopes, advertisers.

So, what to do? Instead of resigning, the remaining staff of the Post should publish the paper’s endorsement of the Harris/Walz ticket as it had planned. Just do it! Force Bezos’ hand. He may fire you, but your chances of long-term employment at the Post are slim at best in the face of its journalistic suicide. So, DO NOT OBEY. RESIST! Publish the endorsement.

If Bezos starts firing staff, walk out together and leave the ashes of this once great newspaper for Bezos to clean up. With no employees, he can’t produce a newspaper in hard copy or online. Refuse to be the fake news that Donald Trump has always accused you of and stand for what is right before it is too late. And, one hopes, the union(s) representing the Post’s staff will bring suits against the company and the people behind the decision to destroy the paper’s editorial independence while maintaining the now-ludicrous slogan that Democracy Dies in Darkness. The Darkness is here in the form of Donald Trump and everything he represents. In the words made famous by the Welsh poet Dylan Thomas: “Rage, rage against the dying of the light.”

Why Are Pruitt’s Basketball Tickets Not a Bribe?

4 Replies

On June 3, the New York Times reported that Scott Pruitt was given access, allegedly at market value, to University of Kentucky basketball tickets in a section that is reserved for ticketholders who donated at least $1 million to the university. Other perks were attached to the tickets, including watching from the players’ entrance as the team entered the playing court. The “market value” apparently was $130 per ticket, paid in cash and there is no receipt. An email from the ill-named EPA Ethics Office approved the purchase in advance in the belief that it would be paid by check.

The seats belonged to Joseph W. Craft III, a coal executive who gave more than $2 million to the Trump presidential campaign. According to the NYT report, Craft met with Pruitt seven times or more during Pruitt’s first 14 months as head of the Environmental Protection Agency. The “or more” results from the fact that the NYT has documents showing that Pruitt and Craft were scheduled to meet on two other occasions but, curiously, “officials would not confirm them.” The known and scheduled contacts occurred at meetings and speeches in Washington, Florida, Kentucky and Georgia.

As discussed at length in the NYT article, Craft has been aggressively pursuing the rollback of environmental restrictions on the coal industry. Pruitt, with the overt support of Donald Trump, has been happy to oblige, including, for example, repealing the Obama instituted Clean Power Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and stopping enforcement of a rule prohibiting coal-powered plans from dumping toxic metals into rivers. The latter move was sought by a coal industry group on whose board Craft sits.

So, as you and your progeny experience worse air and water pollution and possible cancers and other adverse health consequences down the road, you have Scott Pruitt and Donald Trump to thank.

Returning to the main point of this post, I understand the notion that paying someone market value for an item can be seen as “not a gift” but a mere purchase like any other purchase. Clearly, when you buy something on Amazon, even at a discount from other available prices, no one would rationally argue that Amazon made a gift to you.

However, if you are exploiting a personal relationship with Jeff Bezos, the head of Amazon, who is selling you an item at a market price but it is an item that cannot be bought anywhere else unless you are a person of similar economic standing and advantage as Bezos, that, in my view, is quite another matter. To put the obvious meat on that bone, if Bezos has tickets behind home plate for the World Series, and if Bezos wants something you have or you have the power to deliver or even materially influence on his behalf, it is clear, I suggest, that Bezos would have effectively bribed you by “selling” his World Series tickets to you, even if you paid full price. You could not have bought those tickets in the open market and, even if you could get them on, say, StubHub, it would be most efficient, not to mention friendly, to accept the offer from your pal, Jeff.

Here are the relevant elements of the basic federal bribery statute:

18 U.S. Code § 201 – Bribery of public officials and witnesses

(a) For the purpose of this section—

(1) the term “public official” means … an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof ….;

(3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.

(b)Whoever—

(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official… or offers or promises any public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent— [bold face emphasis added]

(A) to influence any official act; or

(B) to influence such public official… to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

(C) to induce such public official … to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;

(2) being a public official … directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for: [bold face emphasis added]

(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;

(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;

(3) ….

(4) ….

shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(c)Whoever—

(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—

(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official … for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official … [bold face emphasis added] or

(B) being a public official … otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;

….

 (3) directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom; [bold face emphasis added]

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.

In case you’re wondering, 18 U.S, Code § 641 defines “value” as “face, par, or market value, or cost price, either wholesale or retail, whichever is greater.” The Department of Justice describes the two core sections of 18 U.S. Code § 201 as “bribes” versus “gratuities.” The critical difference is the lesser, but still significant, penalty for a “gratuity.”  https://bit.ly/2p2S0nU

I cannot claim expertise in the field of bribery of federal officials, but on the face of it, I do not understand how the sale, at any price, of restricted access tickets to a sports event is not the offer and acceptance of a thing of value and, in the obvious circumstances of this case and the relationship between Pruitt and Craft, therefore a bribe under 18 U.S. Code § 201. Add this to the long list of questionable actions by Pruitt, which have led to at least a dozen investigations into his conduct. I invite anyone with expertise in the area to enlighten me regarding how the sale of highly restricted sports tickets to the head of an agency that is being solicited to undertake acts in favor of the seller’s interests is not a bribe.