Washington Post cancellations hit 250,000 – 10% of subscribers
Washington Post cancellations hit 250,000 – 10% of subscribers
Reader backlash against decision not to make presidential endorsement rolls on despite Bezos defense of decision
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.
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
Direct your money towards better journalism.
I suggest ProPublica.
This is key. Follow journalists and editors who leave WaPo and support them wherever they go.
Otherwise this may just be playing into the hand of Bezos to cripple yet another outlet that speaks truth to power.
ProPublica does phenomenal work.
To him, I’m sure it’s an acceptable loss.
If Amazon Prime and AWS cancellations hit a significant level over this, that would have more of an impact.
Yup, he'll lose more revenue than those 10% WaPo subscribers under Harris. If Harris raises Amazon's taxes half a percent, this loss would become rounding error. Bezos wants Trump to win and wants to be Trump's friend for his own financial gain.
He also knows most companies won’t cancel their AWS
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.
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.
I really wish his wife had gotten the WaPo in the divorce.
Besos wipes his ass with those 250K subscribers. What he needs is to be stripped of his wealth.
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
Nationalize Amazon. It is a marketplace now
Hell yeah
I have commented how that decision led me to cancel my WaPo subscription which then snowballed into cancellations of Audible, Kindle Unlimited, Prime Video (ad-less), Amazon Photos, etc. Today I was chatting with my wife and she has now discarded the idea of using Blue Origin's satellite based internet access over Starlink. That's fifteen mobile response units where Jeff's space junk won't be considered.
Wait… your wife is ditching Kupier, which doesn’t exist yet, because of a single stunt Bezos pulled, but Starlink, run by the guy funding Trump’s election campaign, is still in the running?
Isn't Starlink Musk's outfit?
Yes, and we are desperate to ditch it. The idea was to switch to
Blue OriginAmazon's Project Kuiper as soon as it became available. Now it's fucked if we do and fucked if we don't.That said, fourteen of the Starlink units are suspended until needed, which means no monthly payments.
EDIT: I mistakenly called the satellite project Blue Origin.
Yes, it is. It is very hard to escape having relations with capitalist conglomerates in most sectors, in some it is impossible. That is why having political control of the State is the only way of the working class to control the billionaires, if the economy side of society is not radically altered.
Blue Origin isn't planning any satellite internet projects.
There is Amazon's Project Kuiper, which aims to bring Starlink-like Internet using a constellation of 3,000 satellites, but currently they have zero satellites in orbit (and the two prototypes they launched were ULA launches).
If/when Kuiper matures, Bezos owns less of Amazon than Musk owns of SpaceX, so if your goal is to keep as little of your money out of these men's hands as you can, Kuiper might be the way to go.
Great information, thank you. My use of the Blue Origin name is my mistake. Regardless, the original goal was to ditch Starlink. Hopefully we will be able to do so.
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.
This was a potential explanation as to why Bezos did that https://lemmy.haley.io/post/1058450
But not necessarily for the reasons you think.
It was pretty much exactly the reasons I thought.
Note the other facet is not just the odds being close, but the consequences being different. If Trump wins, these people know he will be vindictive. In his first term he killed a $10 billion deal with Amazon due to WaPo's coverage and taking it out on Bezos at large. If Harris wins, then she's expected to be more proper, so kowtowing to Trump wouldn't have a downside. So bad behavior to a point is rewarded even in a good outcome, because the good behavior response doesn't call to be all pissy over this sort of thing.
Of course, would be mitigated if huge businesses chock full of ulterior motives didn't outright control big journalism outlets.
I forget the exact name of it, but there's a game theory problem adjacent to but not exactly the Prisoner's Dilemma. Everyone votes yes or no, and if yes wins, everyone loses $20, but everyone who voted no loses $200. If no wins, nothing happens.
This is basically a variation of that problem.
Do we really need an explanation as to why capitalists are okay with supporting fascists?
Yes, liberals would be democratic socialists if they understood.
Hopefully...
Finally some good fucking news.
should be paired with Amazon for the double punch
I don’t imagine they thought that this would literally decimate their subscriber base.*
- ~yes I made the same joke twice in two different communities. It’s not often you get to use the literal definition of decimate.~
I can honestly count myself as one but also never using prime again either.
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.
bleed some more, bozo, and wapo will drop from 3rd to 4th (print circulation probably already has) largest, behind usa today
In a way this is better than an endorsement would've been. Especially because it's acknowledged who the would-be recipient of the endorsement would have been.
Sadly, that's chump change for him. 250k sub's at $120/yr comes out to $30M/yr. That's ~ 0.015% of his net wealth. Better than nothing though.
I believe that the main reason for people as wealthy as him to own newspapers is not the money, it's the influence. This does hurt that
That is an annual loss of $30 million. ha ha
let's gooooo!!
I gotta be honest... I don't think news papers should officially endorse a candidate. Report on the issues accurately and call it a day. It reduces the perception of bias.
There is literally an entire section called "Opinion", where various columnists give their interpretation of the latest news.
And if they are giving opinions, they should give an opinion about who should be president.
Editorial boards are strictly segregated from the objective reporters. Except for right wing media anyway.
True. I guess I can't read... Editorials are open season.
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?
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.
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.
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.
It is extremely common for newspapers to support a candidate. Maybe even the norm. It certainly is for local politics.
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.
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.
Jesus christ ppl don't downvote someone for respectfully asking a question.
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.
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.
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
