Ruth Marcus, who recently resigned as a Washington Post columnist after four decades, said she parted ways with the paper following a spiked opinion piece on the paper’s billionaire owner because her job is to tell readers “what I think, not what Jeff Bezos thinks I should think.”

In a New Yorker piece that was published less than 48 hours after her resignation, Marcus shared more details about the events that led to her departure — and raised concerns about what Bezos’ changes could mean for the future of the paper’s opinion coverage. The New Yorker piece also includesa column written by Marcus that was spiked by the Post’s chief executive and publisher Will Lewis.

One week ago, Bezos announced the opinion section would focus on two “pillars,” personal liberties and free markets, while “viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.” Several Post staffers have publicly called out the change, which is reported to have led to 75,000 readers ending their subscriptions in less than 48 hours, and opinion editor David Shipley resigned after being asked to lead the overhauled opinion desk. Marcus’ blocked piece only gently raised issues with Bezos’ overhaul.

Marcus’ columnwas scrapped for allegedly failing to meet the Post’s “high bar” and for being “too speculative,” since the impact of Bezos’ actions wouldn’t be known until a new opinion editor was named, Mary Duenwald, the Post’s deputy opinion editor, according to the New Yorker piece.

When Marcus asked to meet with Lewis over his choice to scrap her column, her request was denied “because his decision was final.” That’s when Marcus says she resigned.

Marcus called her column “meek to the point of embarrassing” — a fact that makes her resignation all the more alarming. The column, as she points out, neither mentions Bezos’ months-long attempts to curry favor with President Donald Trump nor questions Bezos’ motives. It simply disagrees with Bezos’ decision.

“Running it, I believed, would enhance the Post’s credibility, not undermine it,” she writes in the New Yorker.

Columnists owe readers “our best judgments on any particular issue,” she writes, noting that, in doing so, they are asking subscribers to “trust” that they aren’t “being told how to think or what to say, or trimming our sails to stay out of dangerous waters.”

“But, once the changes are implemented, I fear that readers will no longer be able to rely on such assurances, because Bezos, as I read his message, has told them they can’t,” she continues in the article.

The Post did not respond to a request for comment.

In the spiked column,Marcus “respectfully dissent(s)” with Bezos, noting the changes are “within his prerogatives” and arguing that “narrowing the range of acceptable opinions is an unwise course, one that disserves and underestimates our readers.” The column does not call out Bezos personally but raises concerns about his new edict.

With the transformed opinion desk’s new mandate, Marcus writes she “fear(s)” readers will no longer have assurances columnists will provide them with the “best judgements on any particular issue.” And she says that “it is asking a lot of readers not to suspect that Bezos’s personal business interests play no role here.”

Matt Murray, the Post’s executive editor,announced a significant overhaul of the paper’s newsroom the same day as Marcus’ resignation, noting the reorganization would aim to meet “all audiences where they are,” offering a “greater variety of story formats and a sharper focus.” Murray said in a town hall later that day that he “would not be here if I thought there was editorial interference coming from the top,” according to Status, emphasizing that Bezos’ opinion changes would not bleed into the newsroom.

While that’s likely true — at least for the time being — Bezos’ promise that divergent viewpoints’ will not be welcome at the Post is already being fulfilled. The new mandate from the billionaire, who in an October op-ed wrote that he’s“also a complexifier for The Post,” is already raising questions about the new opinion desk’s approach to penning editorial pieces. As the Post looks to win back old subscribers and woo new ones, it risks alienating readers and jeopardizing readers’ trust in the storied publication.

The ripples from Bezos’ changes come asfaithin news mediais at an all-time low. But even as news publishers struggle to retain subscribers and increase trust, their billionaire media ownerscontinue to make changes that risk hampering credibility.

In October, several papers, including the Post, blocked endorsements of Vice President Kamala Harris for president at the 11th hour. Since Trump’s November victory, Bezos has not shied away from cozying up to the president, with Amazon recently nabbing the streaming rights to “The Apprentice.”

The Post isn’t the only paper facing issues.On March 5, a new AI tool at the Los Angeles Times introduced at the request ofbillionaire ownerPatrick Soon-Shiongsympathized with the Ku Klux Klan in an opinion piece.It’s another example of a storied newspaper struggling with how to manage its opinion section as the news industry grapples with changes in the technology, media and political landscapes.

For the Post, winning back subscribers is becoming an increasingly tall order. While the newsroom remains distinct from the opinion section, the Post will have to keep readers convinced that’s true.

Complexifier indeed.