Regardless of which bubble you filled in last November — or whether you filled one in at all — the role of the press in shaping public discourse and accountability remains important. Journalism has undergone a profound transformation, evolving into an industry that surpasses even the most ambitious visions of our nation’s founders. Yet, recent developments have cast a troubling shadow over the future of a free and independent press, raising urgent concerns about its integrity and sustainability.

As an editorial board composed of many aspiring journalists, we observe these shifts from our Brandeis bubble with a growing sense of trepidation. The First Amendment enshrines press freedom as a fundamental right, and we have long believed that, despite the industry’s challenges, there would always be a space for us within it. However, we have watched our peers struggle as entry-level government positions, once within reach, have disappeared amid sweeping budget cuts and diminishing federal support. Journalism is not merely an institution — it is the foundation upon which an informed society is built.

Prior to the most recent presidential election, we witnessed an alarming instance of editorial interference when Jeff Bezos, the billionaire owner of Amazon and The Washington Post, refused to publish the editorial board’s already completed endorsement of candidate Kamala Harris. To some, this may have seemed inconsequential, but to this editorial board, it signaled a profound betrayal. A publication bearing the slogan “Democracy Dies in Darkness” was once a beacon of journalistic integrity; now, it stands compromised.

Bezos’ intervention did not end there. This past week, the self proclaimed “hands-off” owner of The Post made yet another grave misstep, dispatching a directive to staff regarding the future of the paper’s opinion section. In his statement, Bezos declared that The Post would henceforth devote itself to “writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets.” This decision prompted the resignation of David Shipley, the former opinions editor, who had opposed such ideological constraints for months. As The New York Times reported, Shipley argued that Bezos’ mandate would erode the diversity of viewpoints that had long defined the paper’s editorial pages.

The consequences of this shift have been swift and severe. Since the announcement, The Washington Post has hemorrhaged over 75,000 subscribers — members of this board among them. This loss compounds the fallout from Bezos’ initial refusal to publish the endorsement editorial, bringing the paper’s total subscriber deficit to more than 300,000 in just a matter of a few months. A once-revered institution now stands as a cautionary tale of what happens when journalism is subordinated to corporate interests.

News organizations have historically had political affiliations; in fact, many were originally funded by political parties. The editorial pages have always served a singular purpose: to present informed opinions, offer guidance and articulate visions for the future. As esteemed journalists depart The Post in pursuit of opportunities at publications that uphold the core tenets of the press, we support their decision to prioritize journalistic integrity over financial and political pressures. We lament the loss of what was once a dream job for so many of us, and we mourn the erosion of trust in an institution that should champion truth, not agenda-driven narratives.

This editorial board also stands in solidarity with the journalists of the Associated Press, a globally recognized source of independent reporting. The AP’s commitment to factual, unbiased journalism was met with retaliation when President Donald Trump expelled its reporters from the White House Press Pool after the organization refused to adopt his administration’s directive to rename the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.” The AP plays a crucial role in supporting local newsrooms that lack the resources to report on national and international affairs. Without such institutions, the fabric of informed democracy begins to fray.

In response to this expulsion, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the administration’s decision, stating that inclusion in the press pool is “a privilege, not a right.” This statement forces us to confront an unsettling question: if access to unbiased information is deemed a privilege, does this administration also consider being an informed voter a privilege rather than a right?

Compounding this concern is the administration’s recent decision to handpick which news organizations may cover the president, effectively curating the questions posed to him and shaping his public portrayal. According to The New York Times, this move breaks decades of precedent, wherein the White House press corps functioned as an independent entity. Eugene Daniels, President of the White House Correspondents’ Association, denounced the decision, stating “this move tears at the independence of a free press in the United States … It suggests the government will choose the journalists who cover the president. In a free country, leaders must not be able to choose their own press corps.”

As both aspiring journalists and news consumers, we find this development profoundly alarming. The United States was founded on principles of freedom and education — both in terms of free speech and a free press. We firmly believe that every individual in this nation has the right to be informed regarding the workings of their government, a right that transcends partisan allegiance.

Journalism is, by nature, an evolving industry — one that thrives on a continuous influx of fresh talent and the wisdom of seasoned mentors. However, we now face a pivotal moment in which the industry’s very future is at stake. The influence of political and corporate forces has always been present in the media, but we have reached a critical juncture where these forces threaten to undermine the press’ core purpose.

Moving forward, the only viable path is one of unity among news organizations. We call on publications to set aside their differences and present a united front in defense of freedom of the press. As young journalists on the cusp of entering this profession, we urge those who came before us to safeguard the integrity of the industry that we have dedicated ourselves to joining. While we are grateful for the platform we have as The Justice editorial board, we remain apprehensive about the future. Yet, in our pursuit of truth, we remain resolute; journalism must endure, and democracy must not be allowed to die in darkness.