265

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.

MBFC
Archive

top 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 85 points 2 hours ago
[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 42 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

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.

[-] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 hour ago

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

[-] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 31 points 2 hours ago

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.

[-] goldteeth@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 hour ago

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.

[-] spacemanspiffy@lemmy.world 22 points 2 hours ago

Finally some good fucking news.

[-] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 21 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

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.

[-] Lauchs@lemmy.world 9 points 1 hour ago

Isn't Starlink Musk's outfit?

[-] Teils13@lemmy.eco.br 3 points 51 minutes ago

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.

[-] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Yes, and we are desperate to ditch it. The idea was to switch to ~~Blue Origin~~ Amazon'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.

[-] Lauchs@lemmy.world 1 points 16 minutes ago

Totally fair. And there are definitely reasons to dislike Bezos but on the which of the two is worse... Going Musk over Bezos feels a little.like the folks claiming trump will be better for Palestineans. Bezos didn't let his paper endorse trump, Musk is full on bribing people, campaign rallying for trump etc.

But to each their own, like I said, plenty of reasons to dislike Bezos.

[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 hour ago

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?

[-] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 hour ago

Ditching the idea of transitioning to Kupier once available, yes. For now, most of the units are suspended (zero cost) until needed. My hope is that other options become available.

[-] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 6 points 1 hour ago

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.

[-] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

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.

[-] expatriado@lemmy.world 13 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

should be paired with Amazon Prime cancelation for the double punch

[-] mercano@lemmy.world 6 points 1 hour ago

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.

[-] modifier@lemmy.ca 1 points 53 minutes ago

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.

[-] adarza@lemmy.ca 11 points 2 hours ago

bleed some more, bozo, and wapo will drop from 3rd to 4th (print circulation probably already has) largest, behind usa today

[-] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 3 points 37 minutes ago* (last edited 36 minutes ago)

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.~
[-] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

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.

[-] Skua@kbin.earth 16 points 2 hours ago

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

[-] makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml 11 points 3 hours ago

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?

[-] cAUzapNEAGLb@lemmy.world 55 points 2 hours ago

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.

[-] toomanypancakes@lemmy.world 43 points 2 hours ago

After decades of endorsing presidential candidates, this is the election they decided to stop doing so for.

[-] alquicksilver@lemmy.world 31 points 2 hours ago

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.

[-] kriz@slrpnk.net 5 points 2 hours ago

Jesus christ ppl don't downvote someone for respectfully asking a question.

[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 9 points 1 hour ago

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.

[-] Drusas@fedia.io 4 points 1 hour ago

It is extremely common for newspapers to support a candidate. Maybe even the norm. It certainly is for local politics.

[-] zoostation@lemmy.world 17 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

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.

[-] celeste@kbin.earth 6 points 2 hours ago

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.

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

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.

[-] xtr0n@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 hours ago

Side note. What’s the point of having Fuck You money if you’re afraid to say “fuck you” to fascists?

[-] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

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.

[-] xtr0n@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 hours ago

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.

[-] sensiblepuffin@lemmy.world 2 points 30 minutes ago

Turns out you don't become one of the world's richest men by not being a fucking selfish coward.

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world 6 points 3 hours ago

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


Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/oct/29/washington-post-subscriber-cancellations
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

[-] ohellidk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 hours ago

let's gooooo!!

[-] Zier@fedia.io 1 points 2 hours ago

That is an annual loss of $30 million. ha ha

this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
265 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19127 readers
3994 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS