Amazon CEO and Owner of the Washington Post Jeff Bezos decided that the paper, for the first time since 1988, will not endorse a U.S. presidential candidate. Bezos explained his decision in an opinion piece students can analyze as an example of a persuasive message.

After The Post lost about 200,000, or 8%, of its subscribers, and three editorial board members resigned, Bezos was compelled to respond to the criticism. He frames his argument as, “The hard truth: Americans don’t trust the news media,” citing the Gallup Poll about trust in the media, which has declined.

In this section of the piece, students can identify persuasive strategies they learned in class:

Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, “I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.” None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one. Eugene Meyer, publisher of The Washington Post from 1933 to 1946, thought the same, and he was right. By itself, declining to endorse presidential candidates is not enough to move us very far up the trust scale, but it’s a meaningful step in the right direction.

First is a claim that endorsements influence no one. We don’t see evidence for this claim, and saying “none” may render the argument fallacious. Second, he claims that endorsements “create a perception of bias.” Maybe, but the larger point is that the paper (media) itself is perceived as biased. How does he know that an endorsement increases that perception? In the last sentence, he argues that resisting an endorsement will build trust. Again, how does he know? What did he think during the past two elections when The Post did endorse a candidate? What’s different now?

Calling upon Eugene Meyer’s position is useful, but students might have questions about Meyer’s background and the historical context of the time. Also, Bezos damages his credibility having allowed two previous endorsements during his ownership. He uses variations of “principle” four times in the piece, which is part of one’s integrity, or consistency. Bezos also says he wishes they (he?) had made the decision earlier, but he doesn’t explain the hold-up other than “inadequate planning.”

Bezos addresses the potential conflict of interest directly. He writes that the timing of the chief executive of one of his companies meeting with President Trump—on the day of the announcement—was coincidental and unknown to him. This sounds believable but is certainly unfortunate timing. Of course, a coincidental meeting also doesn’t mean there isn’t a conflict of interest. Bezos denies using his wealth and power to influence decisions at the paper and admits that he’s a “complexifier” for The Post, as The Post is for him. This is certainly true, and his invented word is fitting.

Others cite media fear of retaliation after the election. Is it best for the paper (and the LA Times) to remain neutral and, perhaps, better whether the storm after this highly controversial and possibly contested election? If he had addressed this issue as directly as the potential conflict of interest, would that have increased his credibility?

However students analyze Bezos’s argument, the situation creates a “bad PR look” for The Post and might harm, rather than help, trust in the media.

Image source.