Yesterday, if you were a default reactionary or a knee-jerk opposition activist - that is to say, a hyper-liberal leftist - you would have thought journalism had been crippled and the First Amendment was lying in tatters. Social media was awash in outrage from the elitist media circles all because a publisher had the audacity to come forward with a new guidance for his newspaper. The newspaper he owns, I seem to need to remind many. 

As we covered, Jeff Bezos came out with a statement concerning a new direction he intends to see in the opinion pages of his publication, The Washington Post. He wants to mold that section into one that is focused more on two elements: Personal Liberties and Free Markets. Here is the main thrust of his intentions:

We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.  

There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job.

I am of America and for America, and proud to be so. Our country did not get here by being typical. And a big part of America’s success has been freedom in the economic realm and everywhere else. Freedom is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical — it drives creativity, invention, and prosperity. 

Now most non-hysterical citizens would see this and probably react with something no more dramatic than a shaking of the head. These are considered bedrock principles on which this nation was founded and led to us becoming something of a superpower. Ya know, good stuff.

However, inside the cubicles festooned with Ivy League regalia stationed beneath the Starbucks-steamed drop ceilings of the WaPo offices, this was regarded as an effrontery the likes of which they have not endured since…a few months ago, when not endorsing Kamala Harris for president was regarded as the end of journalism. 

This was considered deeply offensive and an invasion upon the paper by Bezos, something expressed early by reporter Jeff Stein.

It remains unclear exactly how one can be seen invading a territory they own, but then factual adhesion is not always a priority at WaPo. Now if there was pushback against the idea of a publisher who said he would remain hands-off on the paper’s content, that could be an understandable position. But what we saw was mostly a reaction to the content he insisted upon. 

It is deeply revealing, and there was no shortage of voices from within who displayed their contempt. As indicated in the Bezos statement, Opinions Editor David Shipley was asked if he would usher in this new direction, and instead he opted to step away from the paper. 

Also opposing this move by Bezos was David Hoffman, stepping down from the editorial board in response.

Also announcing his dramatic exit was David Maraniss.

It is rather striking to see this collection of Davids reacting to the scourge of their perceived Goliath, but rather than slaying the giant they are sweeping their desk items into a documents box and exiting the building.

Also taking issue, and taking flight, is Editor Cameron Barr, as well as the esteemed Marty Baron. And while not leaving in a huff, Philip Bump managed to express dismay in his own special fashion (profanity alert):

Now let us take a look at what specifically these complaints are concerning. A publisher is insisting that his paper support basic human rights, and the economic principles that have been the basis of our nation since its inception. A variety of journalists have not only shown an intemperate attitude toward these principles, but many have quit rather than support them. That is revealing itself, but some of the arguments against this are a marvel.

Others have declared this position by Bezos is a First Amendment violation. So a newspaper should put up content that defies human liberty. Such as, for example, a news source promoting free speech restrictions. This is the very definition of a self-defeating principle because it could very well lead to those at some point opposing the paper itself and silencing it as a source.

Others have been declaring that Bezos is doing this as a form of subservience to President Trump, and this exposes the abject lack of thinking applied to this matter. While Bezos is pushing for the promotion of personal liberties, the journalists have been insisting on the pages of his paper that Trump is violating the Constitution. How do we reconcile this paradox?! You are either saying that supporting basic human rights violates the Constitution, or you are admitting that the hysterics over Trump’s policies are in fact hollow accusations.

We have been cataloging the demise of the Outmoded Media, over the past year especially, and this appears to be yet another revelation of the inherent issues in the industry. When the simple support of basic human liberty is a position that causes many to quit in outrage, that is something that could possibly be the first sign of repairing the problems.