Tuesday, March 10, 2026

News and Ideas Worth Sharing

HomeViewpointsMarty Baron was...

Marty Baron was right about everything

The Washington Post's implosion was totally preventable.

Last week, Marty Baron told MS Now’s Ali Velshi, “At The Washington Post, things have been made dramatically worse, I think, by the behavior of the owner.”

Absolutely!

“Changing the editorial page and the opinion pages generally, such that there are no commentators who are essentially left of center. That has really damaged the reputation of the Post,” Baron continued.

One hundred percent!

Baron said he thinks Jeff Bezos “worries about reprisals from Donald Trump.”

Taken together, these three observations suggest Marty Baron was right about everything.

At the same time, if he weren’t such a Scarecrow, Washington Post owner Bezos would worry about the 250,000 subscribers lost to his quashing the paper’s planned presidential endorsement of Kamala Harris in 2024. A self-inflicted, festering wound that brings me to last week’s layoffs at the Post.

When I was at The Catholic University of America in the late 1980s, I fell in love with The Washington Post.

One day my college roommate Liz and I went to the Post for some reason that escapes me now. We followed Ben Bradlee into the cafeteria and said hello to him, which was such a thrill for me.

My college roommate started working for the Post in 1989. She worked there for nearly 37 years. The only other person I personally know who has held exactly one job since college is my high school (and college) friend Jen, who still works for U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut.

Liz was laid off last week, a mere statistic in the Post’s latest purge that trimmed a third of its staff. And no one likes to see their friends get axed in such ruthless fashion.

The Washington Post’s implosion was totally preventable. Think about it: Decimating the entire sports desk during the 2026 Winter Olympics and Super Bowl Sunday does not a very stable genius make. Shuttering the books section? Asinine, Jeff.

Marty Baron was right about everything else when he noted some of Bezos’ other dubious business decisions.

Consider Bezos’ revamping of the editorial section of the paper to focus on “personal liberties and free markets” and shy away from opposing viewpoints remains broadly unpopular. Gee, who else shies away from different perspectives?

But the pièce de résistance has to be “Melania,” double entendre definitely intended. A vapid vanity project and less than nothing more, Bezos subsidized the megalomaniacal president’s phantom wife’s absurd documentary project for some ding-a-ling ka-ching.

No serious businessperson would have considered spending the ridiculous amount of money Bezos did to make the “Razzie” shoo-in unless they had a hidden agenda.

But Bezo’s lack of transparency, coupled with Trump’s relentless grift, is so pedestrian, these dullards really don’t get it. We all know how little they care about journalism, government, or anything else except themselves. Be worst, indeed.

I cancelled my Post subscription on October 25, 2024, after Pulitzer Prize winner Ann Telnaes drew an editorial cartoon that was super spot on, showing Bezos and other tech bros on bended knee extending bags of cash to a morbidly obese, towering Tin Man with a low-hanging tie. I cancelled my subscription because the Post nixed this cartoon.

I cancelled Amazon Prime the next day. You can, too.

spot_img

The Edge Is Free To Read.

But Not To Produce.

Continue reading

PETER MOST: Avoiding the fiscal death spiral

What follows are some ideas raised around the table at Rubi’s, other ideas that deserve consideration, and at least one wisely rejected.

I WITNESS: Of surgical lethality and window dressings

There is nothing "surgical" about the operation, nothing "surgical" about chaos, destruction, and death. In medical terms, if the patient doesn't survive the surgery, it was not quite surgical enough.

Why’d he do it? A chronological rundown of the Trump administration’s explanation for its attacks on Iran

"We heard this attack was defensive in nature," said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York. "Then Rubio said it was preemptive. Which one is it? Regime change? Nuclear weapons? Missiles? An imminent threat to the homeland? Or a preemptive strike to stop future attacks on the region?"

The Edge Is Free To Read.

But Not To Produce.