SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
free press
Capitalism’s Free Speech Trap: Bezos Shows How Billionaires Set the Boundaries of Debate
The Washington Post’s shift toward free-market advocacy is not simply an editorial decision; it is a strategic move to reinforce the dominant ideological framework that benefits the billionaire class.
Feb 27, 2025
The recent directive by Jeff Bezos that The Washington Post editorial section should promote “personal liberties and free markets” is a stark reminder of how freedom under capitalism often boils down to the freedom of economic elites to dictate the parameters of public discourse. While Bezos has suggested that social media provides alternative perspectives, thus absolving his newspaper of the responsibility to represent diverse viewpoints, his decision is part of a broader trend of billionaire media ownership shaping acceptable discourse.
This phenomenon is visible across digital platforms as well. Elon Musk’s control over X (formerly Twitter) has demonstrated how ownership can shape public debate—both through direct interventions, such as the alleged suppression of progressive perspectives, and through more subtle changes to platform algorithms. Similarly, Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta has faced repeated allegations of privileging certain political narratives while suppressing others, including ending its “fact checking” policy that could challenge far-right viewpoints.
Perhaps the most glaring contradiction in Bezos’ advocacy for free markets is the extent to which he, and other billionaires like him, have benefited from state intervention as part of an intentional strategy of “corporate welfare.”
In each case, the rhetoric of “free speech” is selectively applied. While these platforms and newspapers claim to support open debate, their policies ultimately reflect the ideological preferences of their owners. This demonstrates a fundamental truth: In capitalist societies, freedom of expression is often contingent on the interests of those who control the means of communication. The Washington Post’s shift toward free-market advocacy is not simply an editorial decision; it is a strategic move to reinforce the dominant ideological framework that benefits the billionaire class.
The Myth of Meritocracy and the Far-Right’s War on DEI
Bezos’ framing of free markets as inherently linked to personal liberties exposes a deeper ideological assumption—namely, that economic success is the result of individual talent and merit rather than systemic privilege. This assumption is not unique to Bezos but is foundational to the way many economic elites understand their own wealth and influence.
The logic behind Bezos’ editorial direction is similar to the arguments used by the contemporary far-right to attack Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The opposition to DEI is rooted in a desire to preserve the myth that success is determined purely by hard work and ability, rather than by racial, gender, or class privilege. By rejecting policies that acknowledge structural inequalities, The far-right seeks to uphold a narrative that justifies existing economic and social hierarchies.
This worldview is deeply intertwined with the ideology of neoliberalism, which insists that markets are neutral mechanisms that reward the most capable individuals. However, history shows that markets are anything but neutral. The barriers faced by marginalized groups are not simply the result of individual shortcomings; they are the product of centuries of systemic exclusion. The far-right’s attack on DEI serves to obscure these realities, just as Bezos’ insistence on free markets seeks to erase the role of privilege and power in determining economic outcomes.
By positioning The Washington Post as a champion of free markets, Bezos is promoting the idea that capitalism functions as a pure meritocracy. This serves not only to legitimize his own position but also to delegitimize calls for policies that challenge structural inequality, whether in the form of DEI programs, labor protections, or wealth redistribution measures.
The Illusion of the Free Market and Its Political Implications
Perhaps the most glaring contradiction in Bezos’ advocacy for free markets is the extent to which he, and other billionaires like him, have benefited from state intervention as part of an intentional strategy of “corporate welfare.” The notion of a truly free market, where economic actors compete on equal footing without government interference, is a fantasy. In reality, corporations like Amazon have thrived not because of unregulated competition, but because of significant government support.
From tax incentives to government contracts, Amazon has received billions in subsidies that have allowed it to dominate the retail and logistics industries. Moreover, the U.S. government plays a critical role in enforcing corporate-friendly trade policies, suppressing labor movements, and protecting the interests of multinational corporations abroad. These interventions are rarely acknowledged in discussions of free markets, yet they are crucial to understanding the power dynamics of contemporary capitalism.
If freedom under capitalism ultimately means the freedom of the wealthy to dictate the terms of discourse, then the very concept of free speech is in jeopardy.
Politically, Bezos’ editorial directive at The Washington Post serves to strengthen a broader ideological alignment between neoliberal economics and far-right nationalism. By framing free-market capitalism as an essential component of personal liberty, Bezos is laying the groundwork for a political agenda that fuses economic libertarianism with nationalist conservatism. This is significant because it provides an ideological foundation for challenging emerging economic policies that deviate from neoliberal orthodoxy—such as the rise of protectionism in response to globalization.
This alignment between free-market ideology and far-right nationalism is not new. Historically, neoliberalism has often coexisted with reactionary politics, as seen in the economic policies of figures like former U.S. President Ronald Reagan and former U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Today, this synthesis is being revived as right-wing populists seek to defend corporate interests while simultaneously appealing to nationalist sentiments. Bezos’ intervention in The Washington Post should be understood within this broader context: It is not just about shaping editorial policy but about consolidating an ideological framework that benefits economic elites while limiting the scope of acceptable political debate.
The Dangers of Billionaire-Controlled Media
Bezos’ decision to impose a free-market ideology on The Washington Post is not an isolated event; it is part of a larger trend in which media ownership is used to shape public discourse in ways that serve elite interests. This phenomenon extends beyond traditional journalism to social media platforms, where billionaires like Musk and Zuckerberg wield immense power over the flow of information.
At its core, this issue is about more than just media bias—it is about the fundamental tension between democracy and concentrated economic power. A truly free and open society requires a diversity of perspectives, yet the dominance of billionaire-controlled media threatens to constrain the range of acceptable debate. If freedom under capitalism ultimately means the freedom of the wealthy to dictate the terms of discourse, then the very concept of free speech is in jeopardy.
The consolidation of media power in the hands of a few ultra-wealthy individuals raises urgent questions about the future of democratic debate. If we are to challenge the ideological hegemony of economic elites, we must first recognize the mechanisms through which they shape public discourse. Bezos’ editorial mandate is not just about The Washington Post—it is a reflection of the broader struggle over who gets to define the boundaries of political and economic debate in the 21st century.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jeff Bezos Is Greasing America’s Slide Toward Autocracy
Titans like Bezos who control mainstream media are pandering to Trump in ways that compromise their publications.
Feb 26, 2025
Billionaires controlling key elements of the media are helping U.S. President Donald Trump establish an authoritarian regime. Jeff Bezos, owner of The Washington Post, has become a poster child for the phenomenon.
American democracy may be a casualty.
From the beginning of Trump’s political career, Fox News, Newsmax, Sinclair Broadcasting, and other right-wing outlets have spread his propaganda. But now titans who control mainstream media are pandering to Trump in ways that compromise their publications.
Once a Hero
Not so long ago, Bezos was on the correct side of a historic struggle. In August 2013, he bought The Washington Post and boosted its investigative reporting staff. After Trump won the 2016 election, the Post adopted the first slogan in the paper’s 140-year history: Democracy Dies in Darkness.
In May 2016, Bezos discussed his reasons for buying the paper: “I think a lot of us believe this, that democracy dies in darkness, that certain institutions have a very important role in making sure that there is light.”
For the next eight years, the Post honored that mission relentlessly. The paper fact-checked Trump’s assertions and documented his lies. By its count, Trump had made more than 30,000 “false or misleading claims” during his first four-year term alone.
Prior to the 2020 election, the Post’s editorial page had characterized Trump as a threat to the American democratic experiment. The editorial board described Trump as “the worst president of modern times” and endorsed former Vice President Joe Biden to replace him.
The board continued:
Mr. Trump’s negative example has demonstrated how essential in a president are decency, empathy, and respect for other human beings.
…
Democracy is at risk, at home and around the world. The nation desperately needs a president who will respect its public servants; stand up for the rule of law; acknowledge Congress’ constitutional role; and work for the public good, not his private benefit.
And Now a Sycophant
All of the Post’s criticisms of Trump in 2020 were even more on point in 2024. Shortly before the 2024 election, the Post’s editorial board had signed off on the paper’s endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris for president. But it never ran. Bezos personally killed it and, for the first time in decades,The Washington Post did not endorse a U.S. presidential candidate.
The fallout was immediate. Prominent columnists resigned, and more than 250,000 readers canceled their subscriptions.
A few hours after Bezos’s “no endorsement” decision became public, officials from his Blue Origin aerospace company, which has a multi-billion dollar contract with NASA, met with Trump. Bezos claimed that he didn’t know about that meeting.
In December, Bezos flew to Mar-a-Lago where he and his fiancée dined with President-elect Trump. A few weeks later, another Bezos company—Amazon—paid $40 million to license a documentary about Melania Trump, who personally will receive $28 million. At Trump’s inauguration, she told CEOs in attendance that they could be mentioned as “sponsors” at the end of the film and receive invitations to the yet-to-be-produced film’s premiere. The price: $10 million each.
And on February 26, Bezos announced a new rightward shift: The Post would now advocate for “personal liberties and free markets” and not publish opposing viewpoints on those topics.
The paper’s opinion section editor, David Shipley, resigned in response to the change.
A Dangerous Anti-Democratic Theme
Bezos is not alone among the moguls who are helping Trump along the road to autocracy. In future posts, I’ll discuss some of Trump’s other major media accomplices.
Meanwhile, on February 25, Trump announced that he would break decades of precedent and handpick the media outlets that would be allowed to participate in the presidential press pool—the small, rotating group of reporters who relay the president’s day-to-day activities to the public. Previously, the White House Correspondents’ Association, a 111-year-old group representing journalists who cover the administration, determined which reporters would participate in the daily pool. Most often, the pool has consisted of journalists from major organizations such as CNN, Reuters, The Associated Press, ABC News, Fox News, and The New York Times.
Except, of course, in early February Trump banned the AP from the Oval Office and Mar-a-Lago because it continued referring to the “Gulf of Mexico” instead of Trump’s new name for that body of water, the “Gulf of America.”
Democracy dies in sunlight too.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Under Threat of Trump, A Blueprint for Resurgence of Local and Independent Journalism
"This may feel like a difficult time to call for bold policy change," wrote the advocacy group Free Press. "Yet, this is also a moment of immense opportunity."
Feb 26, 2025
Journalism is a public good.
That's the basic premise of a 12-page policy roadmap released Tuesday by Free Press Action, the 501(c)(4) arm of the advocacy group Free Press, and created by members of Media Power Collaborative, an organizing space for media workers and others, which aims to resist journalism's trend towards clickbait, misinformation, and "a shortage of local news that actually meet people's needs."
Instead, the document envisions a transformed media system that enjoys robust public funding and guardrails that safeguard editorial independence. What's needed is a "media system in which the needs of the working and middle classes are valued over corporate profits and the interests of billionaires," according to the authors of the blueprint, which has been endorsed by organizations like the worker-led nonprofit outlet 51st, the National Writers Union, the progressive group Common Cause, and other entities.
So how do we get there? The Media Power Collective outlines a number of actions leaders and policymakers can take that are grouped into categories such as prioritizing "community information needs" and investing in "community-first models to democratize media power."
Under the "community-first models to democratize media power" goal, for example, the blueprint calls for actions like dedicating public subsidies—grants, tax credits, and vouchers—to nonprofit media, public media, community media, BIPOC media, and worker-owned media. If public funding is going to go to commercial outlets, it should be tied to "community-positive factors," like commitments to union neutrality, per the blueprint.
Other actions span a wide range of issues, like halting anti-competitive mergers that impact the media industry, promoting media literacy at the high school level, supporting community colleges as hubs for community information and journalism, and more.
Mike Rispoli, Free Press Action's senior director of journalism and civic information, in a statement Tuesday that "now more than ever, we need to build public support for an independent press that holds power to account and helps people make sense of an increasingly chaotic world around them."
"We're seeing the real consequences of the decades-long collapse of local commercial media: Misinformation is filling the public's news feeds, important government meetings are happening without coverage, and people can't find basic information about what's happening in their neighborhoods," he added.
Neither Free Press Action's statement or the blueprint mentions U.S. President Donald Trump or the conservative policy document Project 2025 by name, but on social media Free Press Action connected the document to the current White House's attacks on press freedom.
"This may feel like a difficult time to call for bold policy change. The new administration is applying pressure to independent journalism, and public media funding will come under attack in the coming months," wrote the group on Bluesky on Tuesday. "Yet, this is also a moment of immense opportunity."
Since his second administration began, Trump has signaled his commitment to continuing his long-running feud with the news media.
In January, the Republican Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr announced an investigation into the outlets NPR and PBS that could lead to stripping them of government funding. And in a break with precedent, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced Tuesday that the administration will now decide which outlets get to participate in the presidential press pool.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular