Longstanding contributor to The Washington Post, Joe Davidson, recently broadcasted his dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs at the news organization, owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos. He wrote in detail about how he was nudged into quitting his role by the evolving editorial policies. Throughout his two-decade affiliation with the paper, Davidson spent 17 years authoring the ‘Federal Insider’ column, a tenure he reluctantly ended when he concluded that being a ‘Washington Post columnist’ was not something he desired to uphold at any cost.
In his farewell article, Davidson criticizes the policies of the publication, particularly those that police opinion pieces. These rules were not formerly present, or at least not strictly enforced, during the majority of his service at the Post. An article he fashioned was considered overly opinionated, far from being compliant with non-existent, variable guidelines. The sudden insistence on these rules was a significant deviation from the established practices in the Washington Post, forcing Davidson into a situation that ultimately led him to quit his duties.
The implications of these newly enforced policies include a noticeable decrease in the critical review of public figures, which runs contrary to traditional press practices. Despite holding strong reservations against the novel guidelines, Davidson doesn’t directly attribute their installation to Bezos. His shock was profound when his column was obstructed for being ‘excessively opinionated’. Making matters worse was the unscheduled nature of these rules, which no one had seemingly heard of until recently. The column in question insightfully evaluated a chaotic period of a certain presidential term and some of the controversial actions undertaken during this time.
To further analyze the implications of the new policy, Davidson continued to write a few more articles. However, the persistent inconsistencies in policy application and increasing absence of analytical commentary in the pieces were disheartening. He mentioned one instance when he was restrained from characterizing a potential wage hike for federal individuals as ‘well-deserved’, all because it defied the unannounced rules set by the Post. These disturbing irregularities in policy execution and subsequent silence became the final straw pushing him towards resignation.
Although Davidson ended his official association with The Washington Post, he plans to remain a subscriber, primarily to uphold the journalistic work of his erstwhile colleagues. Nonetheless, he does empathize with those readers who terminated their subscriptions as a sign of protest against the unsettling changes that, in their belief, have threatened the reputation and objectivity of the long-standing news establishment.
Having received a lifeline from Jeff Bezos when he brought the much-needed influx of cash, vigor, and direction to The Post, it’s sad to see how intertwined the billionaire’s ownership has become with the growing discord within the publication’s rank and file. It seems that Davidson isn’t the only person affected by owner-based decisions leading to internal dissatisfaction and personnel loss.
Over the last year, there have been multiple instances of public criticism directed towards the Washington Post, mainly attributed to Bezos’ choices that have sparked unrest and precipitated numerous departures within the organization. It calls into question the robustness of the paper’s future and the editorial directions it seems to be zealously veering towards. Will it remain a credible news platform, or will it slide further into a state of chaos and dissatisfaction as more esteemed columnists follow in Davidson’s footsteps?