As you probably know, there are some hurt feelings over at the news rooms. This is because some of the nation's liberal newspapers have gone uncommitted on presidential endorsements. No Kamala endorsement, and that's driving a lot of liberals over the cliff.

Why didn't the Washington Post do its usual endorsement of a Democrat? Maybe we should listen to the guy who signs their payroll checks. He is not happy with his newspaper or the state of the media.

This is the message from Jeff Bezos:

The billionaire then argued that presidential endorsements “create a perception of bias… of non-independence” and the decision to end them was a “principled decision.”

Bezos wrote he wished “we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it,” but chalked the issue to “inadequate planning” rather than “some intentional strategy.”

The Washington Post owner said there was no quid pro quo at play, and neither of the candidates or their campaigns were consulted or informed about the decision beforehand.

Bezos cited surveys showing declining public faith in the news media and framed the decision as an effort to restore trust and avoid being replaced by “off-the-cuff podcasts, inaccurate social media posts and other unverified news sources.”

Bezos is right on target and his comments are must reading in newsrooms. Bezos is correct that trust in the media is down, way down. Honestly, I'm not sure that the presidential endorsements have destroyed the media's credibility. What Bezos is more concerned is the biased coverage.

And the perception that the media is in the tank for one candidate, such as VP Harris is 2024, is real.

It's an important message from a man who obviously wants to sell more newspapers or subscriptions. I see it more as a man who sees what's going on in the industry and doesn't like it.

Good for Bezos.

P.S. Check out my blog for posts, podcasts and videos.

Image: U.S. Dept. of Defense