Marty Baron is “deeply disappointed” in Bezos, Washington Post

A Post spokesman did not respond to a Globe request for comment, but told The New York Times on Friday that the president's termination of support was a “decision by the Washington Post.”

The Globe spoke with Baron over the weekend about the Post's decision, which followed a similar rejection at the Los Angeles Times, where Baron worked from 1979 to 1996. He also spoke about his experiences working with Bezos and leading a newsroom that covered Trump. and what this moment says about the future of traditional news organizations. The conversation has been edited for brevity and clarity.

You rarely speak out against the newspaper where you worked as editor-in-chief. Why did you think it was important to do this after the Postal Service decided not to support a presidential candidate?

I thought this was a moment of extraordinary significance. I think democracy is at stake in this election. I think that the pillars of democracy, especially the media institutions, must stand up for what is right. We have to resist pressure, no matter how strong it is, and I felt in this case that the Post showed weakness, and weakness only invites more pressure.

Other newspapers, including those owned by the billionaire Minnesota Star Tribuneannounced months ago that they would forego political support. But the Post made the decision less than two weeks before the election, and it only makes decisions about support in the presidential campaign. What does that signal to you?

If they had announced this three years ago, if they had announced it two years ago, or a year ago, or maybe even six months ago – that's still pretty close – I would have said, good.

It's a perfectly reasonable decision to say you don't want to support the president, and people may agree or disagree. Such a decision should be made after a really well-considered discussion with the publisher, the owner and the editorial team. That didn't happen here.

This happened less than two weeks before the election. According to the Post's own reporting, citing four sources, Jeff Bezos made the decision and the editorial board was just informed of what that decision was. So there has been no substantive consideration of whether this is a wise path or not, what are the advantages or disadvantages of presidential support. This clearly happened for other reasons. It was not made according to high principles.

Publisher and CEO Will Lewis explains why Decision from proverb he doesn't believe in political support for the president and this is a question of principle. Given your knowledge and experience with the dynamic between Trump and Bezos, as well as the business interests he has with his other companies, what do you think prompted this decision?

It's risky to speculate here, but I don't think the reasoning they laid out makes much sense. I mean, with the exception of just one presidential election year, they've been supporting the president for almost half a century.

Is he saying that Katharine Graham and Don Graham, members of the family that owned the post office for eight decades, violated the principle of independence? It just doesn't pass the laugh test. There were obviously other reasons.

Trump has been putting pressure on Bezos since he began his presidential candidacy in 2015. In 2016, the pressure intensified and continued after Trump became president. He threatened to cause enormous damage to the commercial interests of Amazon and Bezos based solely on the Washington Post's reporting. And he has continued this kind of language and become even more vicious in his promises to take revenge on his perceived political enemies. One can only imagine Bezos is feeling the pressure.

You worked under Bezos for many years. Does it surprise you that this decision came from him?

Well, I don't let anything surprise me these days. When I was editor-in-chief of the Post, he resisted tremendous pressure from Trump. Trump threatened to increase postal rates for package deliveries. He intervened in a $10 billion Defense Department cloud computing contract to ensure it didn't go to Amazon. And through it all, Bezos stood with us, even as Trump vilified and attacked him. He didn't give in to the pressure. I was extremely grateful for that.

Now it seems as if he has given in, out of some sort of fear of the consequences of a possible second Trump presidency. I view this as a betrayal of the Post's founding principles – the principles that have shaped the Post, an organization that has shown enormous courage and withstood enormous pressure over decades.

I don't know that I'm necessarily surprised, but I'm deeply disappointed.

In your statement Friday, you wrote that Trump would see this “as an invitation to further intimidate” Bezos. How can you imagine this affecting not just Bezos, but also the Post when it comes to the editorial team, the newsroom, or just the brand itself?

The brand is now largely defined by the phrase that appears at the top of every single Washington Post product: “Democracy dies in darkness.” Bezos talked about it back when we were working on it, when we invented it, and actually has Bezos invented it.

He called it a mission statement. He didn't want to call it a slogan. He didn't want to call it a motto. He called it a mission statement.

The message he wanted to convey was that we have such high standards that we are outraged when those standards are not met. Well, at the moment I am outraged because I believe that the standards are not being met.

You wrote in your book that you never saw Bezos interfere in newsroom decisions. Does this decision make you concerned about the future independence of the Post's newsroom, particularly in the event of a possible Trump administration?

I think that's the concern, because when Trump sees weakness, he just attacks harder. He knows you will give in to his wishes. Then he will try to move forward. He is like a wild animal. When he smells blood, he goes to kill.

As far as I know, this doesn't affect reporting at all. Bezos did not interfere in the reporting during my time there. I haven't heard of anyone interfering in the reporting since I retired, and I don't think he has.

But the fear is that with such weakness, you never know what might happen next. You have to ask yourself: When will Trump stop pushing? And the answer is never. Could this eventually impact other editorials concerning him once he's back in the White House? Could it impact reporting in the future? This is what worries everyone at The Washington Post.

On the other hand, Patrick Soon-Shiong, the owner of the LA Times, made one similar decision not to support any presidential candidate this year. Do you see a similar situation here as at the post office?

I don't think I can say that because I don't know.

What does it mean for our democracy when two of the largest national publications do not endorse a presidential candidate this year?

There has been a lot of discussion about the words of Timothy Snyder, who wrote a great book called On Tyranny, and I think he makes good points. It suggests that powerful people in our country, people with great wealth, make concessions to aspiring autocrats before they even ask for concessions, or simply out of fear. And that is really dangerous.

I was proud to work with Jeff Bezos and see how he persevered despite the enormous pressure Trump put on him. In my opinion this is necessary. And this latest decision at the Post is just a sign that he may have given in to the pressure.

The reality is: If he wants to say that's not the case, then he should say that's not the case. Let him come forward. Let him speak. He's an incredibly eloquent guy, he's super smart and much smarter than me. He doesn't need Will Lewis to speak for him. Let him speak for himself. Have him explain exactly what he was thinking.

We are in an era of media fragmentation. We've seen Trump and Harris really lean into this and talk a lot to podcasts or celebrities and influencers. We're also in an age of social media that has really impacted the news business in a big way. Do all of these developments and support issues say anything about the relevance, or lack thereof, of mainstream legacy media?

I think we remain incredibly relevant. I don't think Donald Trump would waste his time putting pressure on the mainstream media if he didn't think it was important. Why should he bother? That's number one.

Second, most of the actual reporting to find out what's really happening in government, politics, and other powerful institutions comes from traditional news organizations.

I think they are incredibly important. They are not irrelevant. They face enormous competition. You are facing enormous financial challenges. However, their role in society and in this democracy remains essential. I can't even imagine what our society would be like if there weren't traditional news organizations. Who would do the work?

According to reports, the post office is lose Thousands of subscribers in the wake of this decision. This has prompted many reporters to speak out on social media, telling readers that they believe this is hurting the newsroom. What would you say to your former colleagues in the post at this moment?

I say what I told them: I'm sorry for what they have to endure. And I don't think readers should cancel subscriptions. I'm not for it. I have not canceled my subscription and have no intention of doing so.

Why is that? Because I want to support the Post’s reporting. Because I want to support the investigative journalism they do. Because I know that so much of what we know about politicians, including Kamala Harris, is due to the hard work that truly outstanding reporters at the Post and elsewhere do every day. And I can't imagine where we would be if we didn't have a newsroom with this talent and determination to tell us what's happening in our government and other powerful institutions in our society.

I understand why people are upset. I understand why people cancel subscriptions. They want to express their concern about what happened here. But they could do real long-term damage to our democracy, the democracy they hold so dear.

Aidan Ryan can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him @aidanfitzryan.