\n
![](\"https:\/\/progressive.org\/downloads\/21544\/download\/JeffBezos2018.jpg?cb=79baae2d4d7dcde713fb9b115f331211\")
<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
The Washington Post<\/em>\u2019s guide<\/a> to writing an opinion article, published in 2022, assures potential op-ed contributors that the Post<\/em> not only accepts but encourages a wide range of views. Under an FAQ heading that reads \u201cDo you only publish op-eds you agree with?\u201d the guide states, \u201cNo! We strive to publish a diversity of opinions on our op-ed page. Often, that means we are specifically seeking viewpoints that are different from those of our columnists or the Editorial Board.\u201d<\/p>\n That page is now due for an update. In February, The Washington Post <\/em>owner Jeff Bezos announced<\/a> on X that the paper will no longer endeavor to offer \u201ca broad-based opinion section that . . . cover[s] all views\u201d\u2014a mission he considers sufficiently served by the Internet. Instead, the Post<\/em> Opinions section will be reserved for articles \u201cin support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets.\u201d Other topics will be covered as well, Bezos assured readers\u2014just no \u201cviewpoints opposing those pillars.\u201d David Shipley, the Post<\/em>\u2019s editorial page editor, resigned<\/a> after being given the choice to embrace this new, limited framework or leave. Last week, longtime Post<\/em> columnist Ruth Marcus resigned as well, after the Post<\/em>\u2019s publisher spiked a column in which she dissented from Bezos\u2019s decision. \u201cMy job is supposed to be to tell you what I think, not what Jeff Bezos thinks I should think,\u201d she wrote in the piece, which was subsequently published<\/a> alongside an article about her time at the paper in The New Yorker<\/em>.<\/p>\n In the time since, Bezos has doubled down<\/a> on his decision to transform Post<\/em> Opinions into a libertarian commentary hub in the vein of Reason<\/em><\/a>. But a critical question remains unanswered: How will the Post<\/em> handle instances where free enterprise is at odds with individual liberties? After all, contrary to Bezos\u2019s chosen imagery, the \u201cpillars\u201d he describes do not always run in parallel.<\/p>\n In years past, the Post <\/em>Opinions section has published a number of op-eds that thoughtfully explore the tension between Bezos\u2019 imagined pillars. In one August 2017 op-ed for the Post, <\/em>Fredrik deBoer criticized<\/a> corporations and other employers that police their employees\u2019 off-the-clock online speech, citing instances of workers being fired that he argued \u201cdemonstrate the way that private employers can constitute a grave threat to our free speech rights\u2014and expose a conflict between genuine freedom and capitalism.\u201d<\/p>\n In another Post <\/em>op-ed published that month, journalist Barry Lynn described<\/a> his experience being dismissed<\/a> from a think tank after voicing support<\/a> for antitrust measures against Google, one of its donors. His firing, Lynn argued, illustrated how monopolization threatens individual liberties. \u201cIf you want a good example of how giant corporations sometimes misuse the power that concentration gives them,\u201d he writes, \u201cjust look at what happened to me.\u201d<\/p>\n Rightwing Post<\/em> Opinions contributors have also written about the tension between personal and corporate freedoms. In a 2018 op-ed<\/a>, John A. Burtka IV, then of The American Conservative<\/em>, warned of multinational corporations dominating local business and flattening regional diversity, and observed that his ideological ilk was increasingly recognizing that \u201cBig Business can also threaten our liberties and the flourishing of civil society.\u201d<\/p>\n Such perspectives by no means dominated the Post<\/em> Opinions section before the recent shakeup. But under Bezos\u2019s new policy, they\u2019re presumably out of bounds, as would be any argument for liberty that challenges market fundamentalism. And it\u2019s worth noting that the issue these previous opinion pieces interrogated\u2014commercial interests undermining personal freedoms\u2014is one that Bezos\u2019s own business practices frequently exemplify.<\/p>\n Amazon has on numerous occasions been accused of policing its employees\u2019 speech by penalizing<\/a> or dismissing<\/a> those who whistleblow about working<\/a> conditions<\/a>, advocate for unionization, and criticize the company\u2019s environmental<\/a> record. Last January, an Amazon warehouse worker was reportedly fired<\/a> for posting a TikTok jokingly urging shoppers to stop purchasing heavy items like bottled water and dog food. The company also uses authoritarian employee surveillance methods: An April 2024 Oxfam report<\/a> that examined Amazon and Walmart warehouses described them as \u201cregimes of measurement, surveillance, discipline, and data collection\u201d that \u201cunduly punish workers, stifle worker voice, and have negative impacts on worker health, safety, and well-being.\u201d According to Oxfam, 47 percent of Amazon workers reported speaking less to their coworkers than they want to because they are concerned about being monitored, while 54 percent of workers reported that the expected production rate makes it hard for them to use the bathroom at least some of the time.\u00a0<\/p>\n The company has also faced scrutiny for disregarding consumer privacy. In 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) found<\/a> that Amazon\u2019s virtual assistant technology, Alexa, had recorded and indefinitely stored children\u2019s voice data, against the wishes of their parents, in order to develop algorithms. This violated U.S. privacy law, and after the FTC\u2019s intervention, Amazon paid<\/a> a penalty and refunded its customers. The company\u2019s home security camera, Ring, has also raised privacy concerns, including but not limited<\/a> to its partnership with law enforcement to pursue<\/a> a \u201cmutual interest in saturating American communities with surveillance cameras,\u201d according to the American Civil Liberties Union.<\/p>\n In quite ironic fashion, Bezos\u2019s Washington Post <\/em>Opinions overhaul arguably supplies yet another example of capitalist enterprise stifling personal liberties. After all, the world\u2019s third-richest man<\/a> is exerting his vast influence over public discourse by interfering with the editorial autonomy of the nation\u2019s third-largest newspaper<\/a>. As a result, what was previously a leading national forum for broad-minded debate is poised to become a libertarian platform whose contributors must echo the opinions of its owner.<\/p>\n Is this yet another instance of corporate freedom having dodgy implications for liberty? One might reasonably argue as such\u2014just probably not on the pages of Bezos\u2019s revamped Opinions section.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The Washington Post\u2019s guide to writing an opinion article, published in 2022, assures potential op-ed contributors that the Post not only accepts but encourages a wide range of views. Under an FAQ heading that reads \u201cDo you only publish op-eds you agree with?\u201d the guide states, \u201cNo! We strive to publish a diversity of opinions […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":141366,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12022],"tags":[50788,8370,60007,11520,16930,8373,2761,56011,21046,17583,60006,11231],"dealstore":[],"offerexpiration":[],"class_list":["post-141365","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-activist","tag-bezos","tag-censorship","tag-columnists","tag-corporate","tag-dispatches","tag-free-speech","tag-jeff","tag-jeff-bezos","tag-opinion","tag-overreach","tag-robert-mccoy","tag-wont"],"yoast_head":"\n