The alarm last week in response to Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos’ diktat regarding the reimagining of that newspaper’s opinion section was, mercifully, not restricted to the press or media types.

In a note to Post staff, the “superbillionaire,” who bought the paper in 2013, cut right to the chase.

“We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars,” Bezos announced, “personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.”

He continued: “There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job.”

Respectfully, the internet does not do the same job and never has.

Bezos’ note acknowledged that the redirection was a “significant shift” (so significant, indeed, that the section editor given the opportunity to oversee it quit) and described “personal liberties” and “free markets” as “underserved in the current market of ideas and news opinion.”

A moment’s additional analysis of the “underserved” might have yielded a whole battery of neglected viewpoints for Bezos to choose to champion — if serving the underserved, or “service” as we in opinion journalism have long understood it, was at all the point.

Welcoming a variety of views, with as few limitations as possible, is the duty of a serious opinion section. It’s a responsibility, part of a contract between the section and the reading public. This newspaper is fortunate to receive scores of letters and op-ed submissions each week (and has been in receipt of more, in recent weeks, than at any time in recent years) and we undertake to shepherd as many of them as possible into publication.

For an editorial board to assume an institutional position based on certain priorities, the kind assumed by this editorial board and our counterparts across America, is one thing. It’s the disinterested and open-minded selection of contributed op-eds, letters and columns, correctly struck, that promises a bright and useful forum. That promise — the promise of the mix — is rendered null where perspectives are only welcome under named, self-serving headings.

In the present political climate, it is easy to feel isolated or unreasonably judged. Any modern opinion section battles against swirling distrust; allegations of bad-faith decision-making and cynical agenda-pushing are commonplace. It follows that a faithful reflection of the full spectrum of political, personal and philosophical views is more worthwhile than ever.

Is it challenging to pull off? Very challenging. The trick is to understand and respect the task at hand, and to try.