Opinion: Why did Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ article spark a debate on media responsibility?

Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos wrote in an article on the neutrality of media institutions that media institutions should not support any candidate in the presidential election. Our institute also agrees with this and has always followed the policy of neutrality in political matters. But many journalists and experts are raising questions about whether media institutions should really remain neutral? By doing so, are they not retreating from their duty of expressing their opinion and giving direction to the society? Our editorial team has discussed this issue in detail and expressed its views based on the principles of Indian philosophy. Let us understand what the neutrality of media institutions really means and why it is important. Jeff Bezos has written in his/her article that Washington Post will not support any US presidential candidate. he/she argued that such support gave the impression of ‘bias’ and ‘lack of independence’. This can be harmful for a media organization, especially at a time when ‘podcasts without research’ and ‘sneak on social media’ have become a threat to media organizations.

Many people, including current and former Washington Post journalists, disagree with Bezos’s argument. Some critics also believe that Bezos withdrew from the plan to support Kamala Harris because he/she fears that if Trump wins, the media organization will have to suffer the consequences. However, Bezos has denied this in his/her article. The question of whose words should be believed may be of interest to some journalists. But the issue of significant debate for all journalists and media organization owners is whether a media organization should remain neutral.

We have never supported any politician or political party through our editorial columns. We believe that it is not the job of a media organization to put its stamp on any one of the competing candidates/parties. We believe the job of a media organization is to observe, seek to understand, and analyze, all while maintaining an academic distance.

Bezos has written that support from media organizations does not matter because they do not influence voters’ decisions. Maybe he/she is right. But this is not the right reason to keep the media organization neutral. The true reason is that neutrality is the only way a media organization can always operate with an open mind. Those who disagree with us can ask two questions.

First, as one critic of Bezos’s article said, ‘If a media organization is supposed to remain neutral, then why write editorials? But there is a difference between endorsement and editorial. They are very different. Support is for a politician/party that wants the right to rule while editorial is for or against specific actions/statements of those in government or opposition. The editorial may be in favor of A and against B one day, and in favor of B and against A the next day – it depends on the issue.’ In football, good coaches always say, ‘Play the ball, not the man.’ Editorials play with the ball, support plays with the man.

Another question that supporters often ask is how does a media organization protect its ‘values’ by refusing to support a particular politician/party? But the question is, does a media organization need to reflect its values ​​through an election candidate? Doing this means accepting the candidate at face value. But that’s exactly what a media organization shouldn’t do. Maintaining distance, remaining completely neutral, is the greatest proof of impartiality.

Our principle of neutrality is rooted in a long tradition of Indian philosophical thought – to be cognizant of all ideas and viewpoints, but not to identify one’s identity with any one of them. Holding and supporting the ideology propagated by someone is tantamount to intellectual burden. In Indian philosophy, the same thing applies even more in the case of leaders. Choosing a hero or role model and clinging to it is essentially an act of intellectual self-harm. It turns off your mind.

In this philosophical tradition, neutrality brings equality. In computer language, parity is the biggest proof of high processing capacity. When the world around you is restless, your detachment is your best friend in your quest to understand that world. Don’t be disappointed that something has happened, adopt dispassion and try to find out why it has happened.

These things are not, as some might think, irrelevant, religious topics to our crazy world. On the contrary, they stand before us with greater relevance than ever before. Bezos used the word ‘complexifier’. The Indian philosophical tradition of maintaining neutrality provides us with tools to deal with complexifiers. When you’re asked to take a stand, the best thing to do is to sit back, observe, and learn. This is the opinion of our editorial team.