Washington Post readers revolt against Bezos’s editorial board

The AI summaries of reader comments have become a must read

I’ve been having a marvelous time lately reading the Washington Post’s editorial pages online.

Not the editorials themselves, mind you.

No, the sad fact is that under pro-Trump marching orders from owner Jeff Bezos, the Post’s bush-league new opinion editor, Adam O’Neil, has turned the paper’s unsigned editorials into a stream of often laughably dumb right-wing pedantry, Trump sycophancy, and amateurish writing – almost as if the intention was to infuriate traditional Washington Post readers.

And indeed, it’s those furious Washington Post readers who make the online opinion offerings such a joy to behold.

If you click on “comments” the first thing that comes up now is an AI summary of how readers have responded.

And those summaries, my friends, are well-reasoned, edifying, vicious, and utterly delightful.

Consider how readers reacted to the now-infamous October Post editorial headlined “In defense of the White House ballroom.” The editorial was appropriately savaged on social media for its puerility and servility – and the fact that it initially didn’t disclose that Amazon, also owned by Bezos, was a major corporate sponsor. (Former Post writer Gene Weingarten’s annotations are a must-read.) Here’s the summary of the over 7,000 comments:

The conversation explores the controversy surrounding the White House’s new ballroom project, with many participants expressing strong opposition to the initiative. Critics argue that the project disregards historical preservation and democratic processes, highlighting concerns about the lack of transparency and proper review. There is significant skepticism about the motivations behind the project, with accusations of conflicts of interest involving Jeff Bezos and Amazon’s funding. Many comments suggest that the project is a monument to Trump’s ego, overshadowing the White House’s historical significance. The discussion also touches on the perceived decline of The Washington Post’s editorial standards, with some readers expressing disappointment and considering canceling their subscriptions. Overall, the conversation reflects deep concerns about the implications of the project for both historical preservation and the integrity of democratic institutions.

Just this week, the Post ran an editorial headlined “Pam Bondi’s welcome woke rollback.” It was a vile and poorly-argued piece that grossly mischaracterized the doctrine of “disparate impact” that has been so essential to civil rights progress for decades. But listen to what the readers wrote. Here is the AI summary of their comments:

The conversation explores strong reactions to the opinion piece, with many participants expressing disappointment and frustration over the perceived shift in the Washington Post’s editorial stance. Several comments criticize the use of the term “woke,” associating it with right-wing rhetoric and expressing concern that the piece aligns with MAGA talking points. There is a sense of betrayal among readers who feel the piece undermines the legacy of the Washington Post as a champion of civil rights and journalistic integrity. The rollback of the disparate impact doctrine is seen by some as a move that could allow discrimination to persist unchecked, with comments highlighting the importance of this legal tool in addressing systemic bias. Overall, the discussion reflects a deep dissatisfaction with the editorial direction and a call for more nuanced and balanced discourse.

The Post editorial in November excoriating “Generalissimo Zohran Mamdani” for inciting class warfare elicited a particularly furious response:

The conversation explores a strong reaction to the Washington Post’s editorial on Zohran Mamdani, with many participants criticizing the tone and language used in the piece. Several comments express disapproval of the editorial’s portrayal of Mamdani, particularly the use of the term “Generalissimo,” which is seen as crass and inappropriate. Commenters suggest that the editorial reflects more on the Washington Post’s editorial board and its perceived biases than on Mamdani himself. There is a recurring theme of dissatisfaction with the Post’s editorial direction, with some readers questioning the influence of ownership and expressing concern over the paper’s perceived shift in tone. Additionally, some comments highlight Mamdani’s focus on issues like holding landlords accountable and supporting working people, contrasting this with the editorial’s negative framing. Overall, the discussion indicates a disconnect between the editorial board’s perspective and the views of many readers.

And then there’s this singularly transparent Bezos-licking editorial, also from November, strongly opposing taxes on enormous inheritances: “Switzerland just chose its economy over a wealth tax. America, take note.” The readers were not pleased:

The conversation explores the Swiss voters’ decision to reject the proposed inheritance tax, with many participants expressing skepticism about the motivations behind the opinion piece. Several comments suggest that the piece reflects the interests of the wealthy, particularly those of Jeff Bezos, the owner of The Washington Post. Commenters criticize the lack of support for wealth and inheritance taxes, arguing that such taxes are necessary to address economic inequality and ensure that the ultra-rich contribute their fair share to society. Some participants highlight the disparity between the U.S. and other countries, noting that the U.S. has higher wealth inequality and lower taxes compared to nations like Switzerland. There is also a discussion about the potential for wealthy individuals to relocate to avoid taxes, with some commenters dismissing this as an unlikely outcome. Overall, the comments reflect a strong sentiment in favor of taxing the wealthy more heavily to address economic disparities and fund public services.

Want more? Check out the reader responses to the editorial supporting “Elon Musk’s trillion-dollar payday,” or the editorial saying “Wes Moore embarrasses Maryland with his gerrymandering ploy,” which came only a few months after an editorial that mocked the “The Texas gerrymander freakout.”

I should note that the reader-comment summaries are also wonderfully brutal for the Post’s many MAGA opinion columnists.

Consider the response to “Trump whisperer” Salena Zito’s November column describing an hour in the Oval Office spent fawning over Trump and his tariffs. From the AI summary:

Many participants express dissatisfaction with the piece, criticizing it as overly favorable to Trump and lacking in critical analysis. They question the journalistic integrity of publishing such content, especially given the author’s association with the Washington Examiner.

Torture-apologist Marc Thiessen’s evolution into a murder apologist (defending the killing of shipwrecked survivors of boat bombing) didn’t go over well with readers, especially the part where he said Barack Obama had done the same thing. From the AI summary:

Many comments highlight the legal and moral differences, noting that Obama’s strikes were conducted under Congressional authorization and targeted known terrorist threats, whereas Trump’s actions lack similar legal backing and target individuals without clear evidence of wrongdoing. The discussion also touches on the perceived tendency to deflect blame onto previous administrations, with several comments criticizing the opinion piece’s author, Marc Thiessen, for what they see as biased and misleading arguments.

By contrast, readers were positively delighted by too-old-to-fire old-line conservative George F. Will’s recent column headlined “A sickening moral slum of an administration,” where he called Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth a “war criminal… without a war.” Readers rejoiced:

The conversation explores the moral implications of the alleged actions by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, as described in the opinion piece. Participants express strong condemnation of Hegseth’s actions, labeling them as war crimes and calling for his removal and trial. Many comments highlight the broader moral decay within the Trump administration, describing it as a “moral slum” and criticizing its lack of ethics and accountability. There is a consensus that the administration’s actions, including the alleged illegal orders and pardons, reflect a dangerous disregard for American values and the rule of law. Some comments also criticize the complicity of other political figures and institutions in enabling this behavior. Overall, the discussion is marked by a deep sense of outrage and a call for accountability and justice.

What is O’Neal Up To?

O’Neal knows he’s alienating Post readers. He just doesn’t care -- because his job security is uniquely based on pleasing Bezos.

Bezos made it clear last year that he was no longer interested in Post opinion offerings remaining independent when he spiked an editorial endorsement of Kamala Harris just before the election. That resulted in the cancellation of a staggering 250,000 subscriptions – or one in ten.

Then, in February, Bezos announced that left-of-center voices were effectively banished from the opinion pages: “We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.”

O’Neal, a 33-year-old with an unimpressive right-wing track record, was hired in June, and proceeded to drive out what little talent there was left on the Post opinion staff. He has brought on a handful of undistinguished right-wing writers since.

But in what strikes me as an unintentional acknowledgment of weakness, the full membership of the editorial board --which the Post used to proudly list under every unsigned editorial -- is now a closely guarded secret. Either O’Neal is too embarrassed to list them, or they’re too embarrassed to be associated with the garbage they are forced to produce.

O’Neal’s first interview about his new job, which he notably gave to Fox News, was basically a big eff-you to existing reader, both in terms of his mischaracterization of their desires and how he made it clear he doesn’t mind if they leave:

Our readers are overwhelmingly liberal, right? And they’re all overwhelmingly located in blue states. And just a few blue states. And they’re over-represented on the coasts. And so, one way to look at it would be to say, “Well, if you’re non-partisan, and you have a highly partisan readership, they may be offended by that.” And maybe that’s true. But looking forward as I rebuild, I really just see it as an opportunity to expand our reach….

So is it possible that highly partisan readers will no longer like it when we’re not just aligning on one side on every issue? I don’t think that was exactly always the case, but if there are people who had a perception that subscribing to The Post was like a form of activism and that they had to do it to oppose a particular politician or party now that we’re opening up our lands and writing more widely in a nonpartisan way, I don’t know, maybe you’ll lose people that way, but I think the upside of where the growth is by appealing to many more Americans in rebuilding that trust, to me, that’s a pretty clear decision.

The notion that third-rate right-leaning opinion content will actually bring new readers to the Post is pure fantasy. Bezos’s goal here has nothing to do with expanding the Post’s readership. It is to protect his wealth and suck up to Trump. It’s obvious and pathetic.

I don’t know how much longer the Post’s traditional readers will stick around, given the obvious contempt with which they are held by the opinion department. Nor do I know how much longer the Post readers who do stick around will continue to spend their time pouring their hearts into online comments. But as long as they do, these AI summaries will remain a treasure worth savoring.