- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
Deterioration of the Washington Post’s subscriber base continued on Tuesday, hours after its proprietor, Jeff Bezos, defended the decision to forgo formally endorsing a presidential candidate as part of an effort to restore trust in the media.
The publication has now shed 250,000 subscribers, or 10% of the 2.5 million customers it had before the decision was made public on Friday, according to the NPR reporter David Folkenflik.
A day earlier, 200,000 had left according to the same outlet.
The numbers are based on the number of cancellation emails that have been sent out, according to a source at the paper, though the subscriber dashboard is no longer viewable to employees.
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s good to see the system working like it should for the free press for once; they made a terrible decision and they’re paying for it. Now, if we can just collectively turn our backs on all the disreputable sources and start promoting the reputable ones, we might fix a broken system.
A little like it should. Maybe it culminates in at least a temporary drop to the tune of 15-20%. Maybe $50 million dollars of lost revenue a year, assuming people stay pissed (and they frequently get over it, or some MAGA people decide to reward the outlets refusal to get behind Harris). Let’s get super pessimistic and assume it totally tanks, and the first number I could find was about $600 million in annual revenue, so Bezos is out a bit over half a billion if this completely blows.
Just one of Trump’s tantrums cost Bezos $10 Billion in revenue for Amazon. Burning the paper to the ground would be worth it to spare Bezos Trump’s wrath moving forward.
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian’s op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.
Wiki: mixed - Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a “blogposts” tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Media Bias/Fact Check - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Media Bias/Fact Check:
Wiki: unreliable - There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site’s ratings.
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United States of America
Finally some good fucking news.
That is an annual loss of $30 million. ha ha
So not only do they loose the direct revenue from the subscribers, but because the readership has fallen significantly & publicly, advertisement revenue is going to fall, too, as the advertisers know the paper isn’t reaching as many readers.
Besos wipes his ass with those 250K subscribers. What he needs is to be stripped of his wealth.
Nationalize Amazon. It is a marketplace now
Hell yeah
Sure he needs to be taxed into dust. But he doesn’t own the WaPo because it’s making him rich. He runs it because it’s a propaganda machine for him.
He lost 10% of his subscribers, almost immediately, when he tried to use it that way openly. Which says:
- it’s now a 10% less effective propaganda machine (and that number will keep growing)
- it’s possible that it was never effective in the first place
Given those two propositions, he might just unload it, which would be nice for the rest of us.
Yeah, its just I can’t believe I’m living in cyberpunk shitty guilded age 2.0
Billionaires never do anything benevolent. I speculate Bezos is refused the endorsement in case Trump wins and holds a grudge.
Nah, Bezos wants Trump. Lower taxes, less regulation. He knows the backlash would be even worse if he forced an endorsement.
It really is all about the fuckin money.
Fuck bezos
He’s getting exactly what he wanted; to corrupt and neuter another stronghold of journalistic integrity, and turn it into his propaganda network.
He doesn’t care whether it makes money or not. He’s already richer than god, makes more profit than its entire worth every single week, and if Trump wins his personal tax cuts will be in the tens of billions.
Just like Elon and Twitter
even so, these are people who are realizing it isn’t a valuable publication tuning out because this isn’t when he got what we wanted. he got that a while ago
I can honestly count myself as one but also never using prime again either.
I have not been following this.
So, the headline says that the post is not endorsing a candidate.
And due to that, people are cancelling subscriptions.
Erm. Journalism should not be endorsing a candidate. Only reporting on events in an unbiased manner.
What am I missing?
You are missing literally all of the context. WaPo has endorsed in every presidential election since 1988. Suddenly, weeks before an incredibly contentious election, and right around the time Bezos-owned businesses met with Trump, this Bezos-owned publication decides to “return” to its “roots” (after three and a half decades). Even if it’s not actually sinister (debatable, but we may never know), the appearance of impropriety is a serious issue and damages WaPo’s credibility.
It is extremely common for newspapers to support a candidate. Maybe even the norm. It certainly is for local politics.
That’s great in theory, but this isn’t the Election to not endorse a candidate. They’ve also been endorsing candidates for a while. So it’s a clear signal of bezos tacit endorsement of trump.
Their editorial board has endorsed candidates for years. They were prepared to do so again, and then bezos met with trump and canceled the endorsement that was all ready to go. If they had stopped endorsements earlier, it wouldn’t be notable.
The editorial board had written an unpublished endorsement for Harris, and they have been publicly endorsing presidents for the past ~50 years. This year they did not, and recently it was made public why: the billionaire owner, Jeff bezos, ordered them not to.
It is more about there being proof that the owner is having editorial control of the paper, than about any endorsement.
The owner controlling editorial decisions is to many, myself included who also cancelled my subscription, a violation of journalistic principles and not the product we are paying for.
I want to read a publication where skilled journalists can speak their mind, and that is no longer certain at the Washington Post, instead I must interpret their opinions as filtered through a billionaire’s goals and opinions. I do not want to pay for that.
After decades of endorsing presidential candidates, this is the election they decided to stop doing so for.
Newspapers report facts in one section and editorial opinions in a different section. They are clearly compartmentalized from each other. They are both useful. The editorial staff has a long history of making presidential endorsements. We’re free to disagree with the endorsement, they are not telling us what to think, just giving us a perspective to consider among all the others we hear.
What the Post did is highly abnormal. It’s not like the editorial staff decided out of nowhere to write up this endorsement. They did because it’s an automatic thing they’re expected to do before elections.
Think about watching a sports broadcast. There’s typically two guys, one reporting play by play (facts) and the other adding color/analysis.
Jesus christ ppl don’t downvote someone for respectfully asking a question.
Nothing about it comes across as respectful. They openly admit they haven’t been following the story and don’t have context, and then put out an opinion on the story when all the facts and context they needed were in the story this post is linking to.
The fact that that opinion was essentially regurgitating Bezos’ talking point just makes it worse.
I don’t think it was the question, I think it was this:
Journalism should not be endorsing a candidate
Which sounds like it’s arguing against freedom of the press.
One candidate is a politician. One candidate is a fascist.
There’s a very clear dichotomy. And this is the first time in 50 years that they’re NOT making an endorsement. It’s very obviously an attempt by Bezos to avoid being targeted by Trump’s wrath if he wins.
Side note. What’s the point of having Fuck You money if you’re afraid to say “fuck you” to fascists?
I get what you’re saying, but Trump winning would imply a very explicit weaponization of the DoJ against Trump’s enemies, in a way that their money wouldn’t protect them.
There’s a pertinent, current example: Putin and Russia. Super rich oligarchs fall out of windows onto several bullets in the backs of their heads all the time in Moscow these days.
So, rather than using his considerable power and resources to prevent this tragic outcome, he’s electing to preemptively kiss ass and hope it’s enough to keep the eye of sauron aimed elsewhere? Fucking selfish coward. No matter how much Bezos could risk by standing up, ordinary people will always be at greater risk when they stand up. He can hire next level security, travel anywhere in the world and still be safer and more comfortable than any of us going to protests in any major city.
Turns out you don’t become one of the world’s richest men by not being a fucking selfish coward.
Oh, I agree. It’s a bitch-ass cowardly move.
let’s gooooo!!
So not only has he quite literally decimated their readerbase but he’s also made every other newspaper run the story that they were going to endorse Harris anyway, instead of likely just limiting that information to the handful of Washington Post subscribers that cared enough to check. Great quash, Jeff, you really shut that one down.
I really wish his wife had gotten the WaPo in the divorce.
