Then you're wrong and arguing a definition of 'opinion' that appears in no dictionary of which I am aware. Mine is not a controversial statement within the industry, so I'm rather surprised to run into an argument and pushback outside. What do people think editorials are?
They have this opinion for a reason and were willing to bite a source to advance it. Follow the reason.
Uh, no, but thanks for feeding me an opinion that I don't have. Jeff Bezos didn't even enter this picture for me. You're better than this, come on.
WaPo considered its network of government-friendly sources against a single, prominent government-unfriendly source. That's the calculus and why they can't advocate his pardon. I'm not writing a Dan Brown novel here and I'm pretty annoyed with you straw manning me to your preferred target. This would be like Barbara Starr biting Defense.
Is this really news to you, that the Washington Post tends to maintain formation with the city in its name?
Sorry, I thought you were referring to other comments on this thread about Bezos in solidarity. I took a rhetorical shortcut that didn't work out for me.
I do not understand this cui bono logic.
I think it's the role of an Editorial Page to take positions on matters of current events and public policy, and do so so in good faith (ie, to relate the genuinely held and reasonably informed opinions of the staff). My take on the role of an Editorial Page seems like it's pretty much the opposite of your take, which is that the Editorial Page exists to advance the interests of the paper itself.
They have this opinion for a reason and were willing to bite a source to advance it. Follow the reason.