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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
bleed some more, bozo, and wapo will drop from 3rd to 4th (print circulation probably already has) largest, behind usa today
should be paired with Amazon for the double punch
