Washington Post begins large-scale layoffs
WaPo lost something like $100 million in 2024 - 30% more than it lost in 2023.
So Bezos would only be able to keep funding it for another 25,514 years. Well, I can see why he’s worried.
10 Likes
The questions are:
Has the Washington Post entered into a death spiral? (Not uncommon with newspapers this century.)
Or has Jeff Bezos decided to right-size it to its income after several years of significant losses?
DB2
2 Likes
Bezos just gave Trump (Melanija) $40 Million dollars for a movie. This is about following Putin’s example for the Media in the United States.
(I know they’ll scrub this post)
8 Likes
Freudian slip? The rumored reason is the news guys are too left leaning…
4 Likes
If economics is the reason, then you cannot argue. No one can say other person has to run some business when it is losing money, irrespective of that persons’ wealth.
But the real question is, is it economics?
2 Likes
Bezos is the cause of the WAPO losing money.
6 Likes
Could be, although rumors are just that, rumors. But if that is the case, then from a business point of view WaPo needs to distinguish itself from the NYT on the left. That won’t be easy, which is why I asked if the Washington Post entered into a death spiral.
DB2
1 Like
This liberal terminated their Post subscription when they bent the knee and started publishing right wing propaganda. I wonder if liberal defections have been measured?
My mainstream media source is bbc now. Heather Cox Richardson provides the best daily summaries.
7 Likes
So, what is the value-added proposition for WaPo? How do they position themselves in the (declining) marketplace? The major players on the left and right are the New York Times and Fox. Is there room in the middle?
One solution might be to become a Beltway/Washington specialist. I notice that WaPo is cutting back on sports and overseas coverage.
Speaking of declining marketplaces, I noticed yesterday that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution announced that was laying off some 50 employees (15% of the workforce) half of which are from the news department.
DB2
1 Like
WaPo cost Bezos $259M. Bezos is worth $250B. WaPo costs him roughly 10 basis points, proportionately about what I pay Vanguard to run my ETFs. The value added to Bezos consists in buying favorable treatment for his real business at Amazon. WaPo is nothing more than a cost of doing business. I hope the metar impact of that is clear enough to allow this post to survive the censors.
9 Likes
WaPo made a tragic error leaning heavily into editorial bias as opposed objective and fact based reporting. It costs them the general readership. Eventually, when they tried to take a more neutral stance, it cost them those wanting to hear only what they believe to be true.
It’s a shame and I ended my subscription a long time ago, then gave up the NYT, and eventually probably the WSJ. A healthy and informed society needs these outlets to speak truth to power. Unfortunately, they became tools of influence serving a particular base. It’s sad to see this decline but much of it is self inflicted. I continue to believe there is a place for unbiased and truth seeking journalism, if anyone wants to go there and leave activism behind.
3 Likes
Worth repeating so I did!
The Captain
3 Likes
The Washington post is rated “leans slightly left” on the All Sides Media Bias Chart. It is in the same quadrant as the New York Times, Time Magazine, CNBC, CNN, USA Today, Bloomberg, and others.
Fox ranks in the farthest Right column, along with Breitbart, NewsMax, the Federalist, and OAN.
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart
In the Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart, The Washington Post rates “slightly to the left”, along with the New York Times, Frontline, TMZ, and ProPublica. It rates high on the pyramid of “reliable.”
Fox News rates farther to the Right than the Post is to the Left, and rates lower in “reliability” as well. Just FYI.
Note that these evaluations are done by paid researchers, are updated roughly every six months, and are confined to the news columns, not editorial of the media outlets involved.
They are generally regarded as accurate within the media community.
It will be interesting to see what the next iteration of the Washington Post will be, given the recently and newly demonstrated wonts of the owner. With the cutbacks I’m afraid the slogan “Democracy Dies in Darkness” will simply be reduced to “Democracy Dies.”
9 Likes
All Sides provides a gauge but I view it with a grain of salt. In addition, I believe the chart above is the overall rating and not the one assigned specifically to the Editorial section. Their data relies on reader feedback. In addition, it overlooks political bias by omission either of whole important events or the other side of the story.
It’s the public’s perception and trust that matters. The public trust in traditional media is the lowest it’s ever been. There’s a reason and it’s not because of a slightly left leaning view.
I posted in another thread the cut backs by the Graham family prior to selling to Bezos. He actually amped up the spending and gave leadership the opportunity to spend and expand at will. It’s unreasonable to expect him to continue to spend $100 million annually in perpetuity. A failure to gain the trust of readership, a challenging digital world, and a lack of fiscal discipline ended the run.
We agree that the public needs voices speaking truth to power. Platforms that have become mouthpieces to one party or another are a dime a dozen. The cuts are terrible on a personal level but objective reporting died there some time ago. Jennifer Rubin was hired as a center right editorialist with a column called right turn. She quickly became a never Trumper espousing left leaning views. All Sides declared her “left leaning”. In 2023, she wrote an article titled “Republicans want to kill your children”. WaPo lost the broad viewership and catered to a small audience that wanted to hear and read that stuff. Apparently, it’s not financially viable.
Cable television has some advantages over newspapers that allow the model to sustain itself for now. Longer term, Fox, MSNBC and others should pay attention. The public is going to gather information elsewhere if the perceived and actual bias persists. I think most people want to hear the facts or both sides of the argument. Alternative platforms already provide easy methods to fact check the nonsense.
According to unverified sources, among those let go, WAPO released 13 reporters and editors focused on climate change and the environment. Amazing how that was a thing until it wasn’t.
Agreed. Got any suggestions?
2 Likes
The Lane is wide open. I have found no single source but rely on a wide diet and a healthy amount of skepticism.
You didn’t call out FOX and other right leaning media. Surely you can see their biases.
4 Likes
I hope you weren’t a fact checker at WaPo.
“Longer term, Fox, MSNBC and others should pay attention. The public is going to gather information elsewhere if the perceived and actual bias persists. I think most people want to hear the facts or both sides of the argument. Alternative platforms already provide easy methods to fact check the nonsense.”
If you read the earlier part of the thread, I actually specifically reference them. Having said that, Journalism is not a relative standard to your competitors. It is an objective one.