The divorce of Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos, announced first on social media and then promptly followed by an epic National Enquirer report (complete with intimate texts between Bezos and the woman he was having an affair with), was bound to produce a presidential tweet. And after Bezos’s Washington Post published a front-page story on Trump’s efforts to conceal his meetings with Vladimir Putin, the president let fly: “So sorry to hear the news about Jeff Bozo being taken down by a competitor whose reporting, I understand, is far more accurate than the reporting in his lobbyist newspaper, the Amazon Washington Post. Hopefully the paper will soon be placed in better & more responsible hands!”

The Bezoses are—were—the richest couple in the world, so their split, however tawdry some of the details, is a news story of giant import—as much import, say, as the president’s cover-up of an alleged dalliance with a porn actress. Bezos is the founder of a trillion-dollar company that has revolutionized the way we shop and live. In addition to Amazon, of course, he also owns one of America’s most powerful news organizations, which has been at the forefront of shaping our understanding of the current political crisis. Shouldn’t one of America’s great newspapers be able to cover the hand that feeds it?

Inside The Washington Post newsroom, the story is big news, if not yet entirely news of the printable sort. Various journalists that I’ve spoken with at the organization have suggested that writers and editors are ruminating about how the Post is going to proceed with covering—or not covering—the story as it continues to shake out. Reporting on one’s owner or parent company is always a thorny affair. Some outlets, like Bloomberg, just don’t do it. (Although even Bloomberg is grappling with what to do if Mike Bloomberg decides to run for president.) Others, like The New York Times, have reputations for assiduous introspection. (Several months ago, the Times assigned five reporters to a front-page story about a controversy involving one of its own journalists.) The Post is in a particularly tricky spot when it comes to these matters: it has the distinction of being owned by someone who also happens to be the richest person in the world, and therefore one of the world’s most newsworthy people.

The Post journalists I spoke with, perhaps high-mindedly, acknowledged that tabloid-style extramarital affairs aren’t typically in their wheelhouse. “If Amazon had a Facebook type of situation, which had tentacles in Congress, public documents, some sort of connection with the election, that would be far closer to our center of gravity,” one of them told me. “We probably would not be putting a whole team of reporters on this in any case. But it does raise some questions.”

At the same time, they don’t want to appear to be ignoring the story. Another Post journalist told me that some reporters and editors are indeed having conversations about how to handle it and what angle would be appropriate. Is there a tech angle? A business story? Something for the Style section? This is, after all, the Post’s first real crucible, in terms of how to approach a big, controversial episode involving the boss. (The paper very admirably covered another recent story about itself, the murder of Global Opinions columnist Jamal Khashoggi, with fortitude and grace.) “There has been some effort to figure out what’s the threshold for us to write about this,” the Post journalist said. “It’s the first test case, and in the most uncomfortable and salacious territory possible. It’s, like, can’t you just give us a good old-fashioned tax evasion?”

As of Monday afternoon, the Post’s coverage had been scant—an A.P. feed and an item in the Post’s “Reliable Source” gossip column reporting on the January 9 news of the divorce itself. To be fair, it wasn’t as if the Post’s main competitors were going wall to wall. The Times, for what it’s worth, ran a “Who Is MacKenzie Bezos?” feature on the front page of its Monday business section, but beyond that, it hadn’t really done much more than the home team.

As for reactions to the scandal itself, my casual poll of journalists in different parts of the organization would seem to suggest that there aren’t any fire alarms going off down at One Franklin Square. “This is not an obsession,” one told me. “It doesn't seem like there is much concern,” said another. I asked a third to rate the feverishness of the watercooler chatter on a scale of 1 to 10. “Probably a 2 or 3,” this person replied. “I’ve had more outside friends ask me about it than I’ve had internal conversations.”

Ordinarily, newsrooms are hotbeds of gossip, especially when the gossip involves powerful media figures, including a newsroom’s own executives. But Bezos enjoys substantial good will among Post journalists. It was the mogul’s personal fortune that rescued the organization in 2013, his copious investments putting it back on the path to journalistic glory under executive editor Marty Baron. And Bezos is generally viewed as a benevolent, hands-off patron who believes in journalism’s crucial function for society. (Perhaps mindful of his Post ownership, Bezos’s attorney told the Enquirer that Bezos “supports journalistic efforts and does not intend to discourage reporting about him.”) Additionally, while Bezos may end up splitting his estimated $137 billion net worth with his soon-to-be ex-wife, it does not appear that the divorce will have any obvious implications for the Post, financial or otherwise.

What’s more certain is that if the Post does provide any further coverage, it will be closely assessed at the highest levels of the newsroom. “This is something where it really would be Marty’s call,” one of my sources said. “Whatever the Post does, it will absolutely be with his blessing and careful attention.”