When Donald Trump first ran for president, he began threatening that Amazon and Jeff Bezos would pay the price. “If I become president, oh, will they have problems? They will have such problems,” he warned. Trump’s grudge against Amazon centered on Bezos’ ownership of Washington Aftera connection that the president did nothing to disguise. He raged against what he called “Amazon Washington.” After”, falsely claiming that it had avoided “internet taxes”. In 2018, Gabriel Sherman reported that Trump was “obsessed” with retaliation against Bezos for the After‘s coverage.

“We get calls every hour from Washington reporters After He asks ridiculous questions,” he raged at one point, “and let me tell you, this is a toy owned by Jeff Bezos, who controls Amazon. Amazon gets away with murder fiscally. He uses the Washington After for power.”

In 2019, Trump found his leverage. Amazon is set to receive a $10 billion cloud computing contract from the Pentagon. The Pentagon suddenly changed course and denied Amazon the contract. A former speechwriter for Defense Secretary James Mattis reported that Trump instructed Mattis to “screw Amazon.”

This is the context in which the AfterThe party’s decision to strengthen Kamala Harris’ planned endorsement should be considered.

The AfterThe country’s argument is that it has a policy of abstaining from endorsements during presidential races. I believe that this policy is, in an abstract sense, correct. Recommendations on local breeds make a big difference, as readers have often paid little attention to them and need an authoritative recommendation. People who read newspapers like the After such suggestions are not necessary. Supporting national candidates only creates the appearance of bias and has little practical benefit. The newspaper can explain that its endorsement does not affect its reporting, and that explanation is correct, but there is no reason to force every journalist to refute the appearance of bias created by national endorsements.

That said, the process by which the After having come to this decision stinks to high heaven. The newspaper’s editorial staff had planned and reportedly written the endorsement before management overturned it. The abstract journalistic reason for ending the national expressions of support was known months and years in advance. The After announced his decision at the final moments of a razor-thin campaign, in an atmosphere where conventional wisdom (if not necessarily the polls) increasingly treats Trump as a favorite.

The lack of one After approval doesn’t matter. What matters is the real prospect that Bezos will continue to lean on the journalists in his employ to make their work less offensive to a president who has proven himself willing and able to take money out of Bezos’ pockets when he gets him. challenges.