Shipley Sails Out as Washington Post Charts a New Opinion Course

The Washington Post Building at One Franklin Square Building on June 5, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Jeff Bezos didn’t just reshape the Washington Post’s opinion page today—he torched its purported legacy of "diverse" discourse. With a single email, the billionaire owner decreed that personal liberties and free markets will now dominate the section, sidelining editor David Shipley and any voice that dares disagree. It’s a bold pivot—or a reckless gamble—depending on where you stand; and even those who might approve of this new direction aren't exactly ready to forgive and forget.

Shipley, who steered the opinion section with a broad editorial board, is out after reportedly resisting this narrow focus. Much like Zuckerberg before him, Bezos’s vision—unveiled via social media and an internal memo—prioritizes "libertarian ideals," a stark departure from the section’s past embrace of varied perspectives. Online chatter ranges from outrage at censored voices to cheers for a free-market stance, but the truth lies in the execution. The Post has long touted itself as a beacon of debate; now, it risks becoming an echo chamber under its owner’s thumb.

On one hand, a focused opinion page could sharpen the Post’s brand in a crowded media landscape, appealing to libertarians tired of mixed messages. But the cost is steep: silencing dissent is always a risky gamble for a paper, especially considering that it was exactly that which caused people to turn away from the Post to begin with.

WaPo spent years amplifying establishment, CIA-approved political messaging while pooh-poohing on conservative and anti-establishment sentiment, to the point where the papers tagline "Democracy dies in darkness" became a laughable statement, slapped on one of the United States' premier propaganda rags.

Bezos, a tech titan with a profit-driven track record, may see this as a business play—streamline content, boost subscriptions. Yet, history warns against owner-driven agendas; papers thrive on tension, not monologues. Readers deserve more than a billionaire’s soapbox; they need the messy, clashing ideas that fuel real debate. This move to restrict the opinion page to focus solely on "free markets and personal liberties" completely misses the point and reason why WaPo is suffering; people want to see a variety of genuine ideas and to make their own judgements. They are essentially going from being a mouthpiece for the democratic party to being a mouthpiece for the center-right.

WaPo's Storied History and Relationship with the CIA

The Washington Post emerged in 1877 as a modest venture, but its modern legacy took shape under Eugene Meyer’s ownership in the 1930s, when he bought it out of bankruptcy. His daughter, Katharine Graham, steered it to prominence after his death, especially during the Watergate scandal of the 1970s, thanks to the reporting of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein. Yet, this golden era came with a murky underside. Bernstein, post-Post, revealed in 1977 that over 400 American journalists had secretly worked for the CIA, hinting at the paper’s own ties—though no hard evidence names specific Post staff beyond speculation about stringers or Phil Graham, Katharine’s husband and a rumored CIA collaborator. The narrative of a fearless press clashes with whispers of a paper once cozy with intelligence agendas, a tension that lingers.

Rumors about Phil Graham’s death in 1963 add another layer of intrigue. Officially, he died by suicide, shooting himself at their Virginia estate after a spiraling mental health crisis and alcoholism. Yet, whispers persist that it was a CIA-orchestrated hit—some claim his knowledge of agency operations, including alleged propaganda networks, made him a liability. No concrete evidence supports this; the Warren Commission and subsequent investigations upheld suicide, and scholars like David Hadley dismiss the theories as conspiracy fodder. Still, the timing—amid Cold War tensions and his influence at the Post—fuels speculation, with X posts today reviving the narrative as a cautionary tale of power and control, though such claims remain unproven.

That relationship with the CIA deepened with Bezos’s 2013 purchase. His Amazon clinched a $600 million CIA cloud contract that year, sparking unease. Critics argue this deal blurred lines—how can a paper owned by a CIA contractor probe its secrets? The Post’s editor at the time, Martin Baron, dismissed disclosure demands, calling them “far outside the norm,” but the optics fueled suspicion. Historical parallels abound: Operation Mockingbird, the CIA’s Cold War push to sway media, allegedly involved Phil Graham running a propaganda network, though its scale remains debated. The Post’s past—stringers possibly on the CIA payroll, editors mediating secrets—echoes in today’s skepticism about Bezos’s motives.

---

Some users are celebrating the move, viewing it as a bold step toward promoting freedom-loving, America-first values, aligning with libertarian ideals. They see it as a refreshing break from what they call a “tired leftist echo chamber,” with a few praising Bezos’s decision as a counter to mainstream media narratives. On the flip side, a significant portion of the public is outraged, labeling it a betrayal of journalistic integrity and accusing Bezos of imposing a narrow agenda.

The polarized reactions reflect a broader tension—some see liberation, others see censorship—but without comprehensive polling or time for reflection, it’s too early to gauge a definitive public stance. This split mirrors past media controversies, like the presidential endorsement row back in October, but the true impact remains murky amid the noise.

This shake-up is our challenge too. Demand the Post reveal its editorial process—or turn to outlets still wrestling with all sides. A free press isn’t free if it’s leashed to one man’s ideology, especially one tied to the CIA’s purse strings. As Bezos rewrites this chapter, let’s ensure it’s not just his pen at work, but ours.