9 ms·

This is a very big change at the Post. For decades they have dutifully aired competing perspectives from the political left and right as well as major internat

This is a very big change at the Post. For decades they have dutifully aired competing perspectives from the political left and right as well as major international players of different stripes. Now all of that will end. It seems future op-eds will be written only by a carefully curated pool of sanitized Post staff. This suggests that the Post will effectively become just another municipal newspaper that happens to be in located the US capitol, rather than a source of national scope news. This giant shift in strategy will surely decrease the paper's market size and reputation for breaking news (as it did with Watergate and Snowden). I suspect this also portends a big reduction in the paper's commitment to investigative journalism, something that IMO, is truly irreplaceable (especially since investigations at the NY Times have faded into a mere shadow of what the Post has long been in that endeavor. They did a rotten job at reporting Snowden's revelations, for example.) [BTW, I was a subscriber to the Post (and a long time reader before that) but cancelled in protest when Bezos suddenly pulled the Post's endorsement of a presidential candidate in 2024. Now I guess I'll stay away forever.]

ipnon 2y ago
Changing strategy was inevitable. They lost 90% of readers between 2021 and 2024. It would be a dereliction of duty for the owner of the company to continue business as usual in such conditions.
- brewdad 2y ago
  They lost most of those readers due to an alarming shift rightward in tone and coverage. Not Fox News right but certainly further right than they have historically been. Seems an odd choice to combat that loss by apparently shifting further right. You are never going to get large numbers of Fox News consumers to read WaPo. They have been told for decades how far left the Post is and that it can't be trusted. Bezos needs a hobby I guess.
  - edmundsauto 2y ago
    Right wing news is popular in America, I don’t think this could be the main reason why they had such steep declines.
    - sarchertech 2y ago
      It could be. If their reputation changed slower than their content.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      If you start out being popular among people who prefer one approach to reporting and opinion, and unpopular among people who prefer something entirely different, and then you incrementally move away from what you used to do, at the same time as the second group of people have plenty of other options to choose from ... this is precisely what you'd expect. WaPo was viewed as a liberal, slightly left-of-center newspaper that did excellent investigative reporting. It therefore was all but ignored by those whose preferred version of the news is presented by e.g. FOX News. As it has taken some subtle and some not-so-subtle steps to move away from its reputation, that has done nothing to encourage FOX News viewers to read it, and a lot to discourage its former audience from continuing to do so. So one "side" has declined, and the other "side" has no reason to increase.
    - unethical_ban 2y ago
      Right wing media is popular. Right wing news is a niche. See the WSJ and National Review, now WaPo. Not much other news.
    - starkparker 2y ago
      WaPo dropped 10% of its subscriber base in just the one week after the endorsement debacle in October. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/oct/29/washington-post-subscriber-cancellations https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/oct/29/washington-pos...
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - JeremyNT 2y ago
    Indeed, with his wealth the financial success of the paper is irrelevant. Just as with Musk and Twitter, controlling the narrative and pushing an agenda is worth far more than any balance sheets could show.
gaws 2y ago
> This giant shift in strategy will surely decrease the paper's market size and reputation for breaking news (as it did with Watergate and Snowden). Bezos's decision doesn't impact the news side, which reports on breaking news. The paper's editor in chief made a public statement backing that notion.
- mmooss 2y ago
  That's what he says, but most of his announcement is obvious falsehoods and propaganda. Why should we trust him? Obviously he intends to use his power to get what he wants, without regard to anyone else's perspectives. Note that they rejected an advertisement criticising Elon Musk, for example. That's not a news article, but it definitely looks biased.
mmooss 2y ago
> For decades they have dutifully aired competing perspectives from the political left and right as well as major international players of different stripes. I'd say they were clearly on the left since ~2017, but had other perspectives as well.
- righthand 2y ago
  Arguably any main newspaper of a city of any size would obviously align with the beliefs of the residents of said city.
  - mmooss 2y ago
    How does that explain the NYT and WSJ (and NY Post) in the same city? The current LA Times?
    - righthand 2y ago
      NY Times the main newspaper and it mostly aligns with the left. Not sure what’s confusing about that. The others aren’t the main newspaper of that city. It’s not a rule or law but an observation and it does seem pretty accurate. I’m not sure what you’re asking, I don’t read the LA Times, was it bought out by a known right-wing wealthy person or something?
      - mmooss 2y ago
        > NY Times the main newspaper and it mostly aligns with the left. Not sure what’s confusing about that. The others aren’t the main newspaper of that city. The NY Post and Wall Street Journal are among the main newspapers in NYC. > I don’t read the LA Times, was it bought out by a known right-wing wealthy person or something? The owner has openly killed left-wing editorial and supported the right (including Trump). > It’s not a rule or law but an observation and it does seem pretty accurate. If you can find evidence for it. It doesn't seem true in NY or LA.
        2y ago
mjfl 2y ago
for decades they have been a mouthpiece for the CIA and the deep state. Bezos is clearing house.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- AnonymousPlanet 2y ago
  It looks like a bunch of billionaires are establishing exactly what they purport to end, cresting that swamp they said they would dry. Makes you wonder how much of those allegations were true in the first place.
  - mjfl 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - singleshot_ 2y ago
      I had gotten the impression we weren’t supposed to denigrate each other as animals in this community.
      - mjfl 2y ago
        not my best comment, but I can't delete it now.
will4274 2y ago
The idea of competing perspectives from the political left and right is majorly under attack. In 2020, the NYT fired the editor who oversaw the opinion page for publishing the perspective of an influential senator who had the ear of the president. WaPo had similar internal debates, with many staff members loudly objecting to the publishing of perspectives from the political right. There's an school of thought that says when you can't win, you should try to lose as painlessly as possible. This change looks a lot like that.
selfmodruntime 2y ago
> This is a very big change at the Post. For decades they have dutifully aired competing perspectives from the political left and right as well as major international players of different stripes We must've read two different WaPos.

ipnon 2y ago

Changing strategy was inevitable. They lost 90% of readers between 2021 and 2024. It would be a dereliction of duty for the owner of the company to continue business as usual in such conditions.

brewdad 2y ago
They lost most of those readers due to an alarming shift rightward in tone and coverage. Not Fox News right but certainly further right than they have historically been. Seems an odd choice to combat that loss by apparently shifting further right. You are never going to get large numbers of Fox News consumers to read WaPo. They have been told for decades how far left the Post is and that it can't be trusted. Bezos needs a hobby I guess.
- edmundsauto 2y ago
  Right wing news is popular in America, I don’t think this could be the main reason why they had such steep declines.
  - sarchertech 2y ago
    It could be. If their reputation changed slower than their content.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    If you start out being popular among people who prefer one approach to reporting and opinion, and unpopular among people who prefer something entirely different, and then you incrementally move away from what you used to do, at the same time as the second group of people have plenty of other options to choose from ... this is precisely what you'd expect. WaPo was viewed as a liberal, slightly left-of-center newspaper that did excellent investigative reporting. It therefore was all but ignored by those whose preferred version of the news is presented by e.g. FOX News. As it has taken some subtle and some not-so-subtle steps to move away from its reputation, that has done nothing to encourage FOX News viewers to read it, and a lot to discourage its former audience from continuing to do so. So one "side" has declined, and the other "side" has no reason to increase.
  - unethical_ban 2y ago
    Right wing media is popular. Right wing news is a niche. See the WSJ and National Review, now WaPo. Not much other news.
  - starkparker 2y ago
    WaPo dropped 10% of its subscriber base in just the one week after the endorsement debacle in October. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/oct/29/washington-post-subscriber-cancellations https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/oct/29/washington-pos...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- JeremyNT 2y ago
  Indeed, with his wealth the financial success of the paper is irrelevant. Just as with Musk and Twitter, controlling the narrative and pushing an agenda is worth far more than any balance sheets could show.

gaws 2y ago

> This giant shift in strategy will surely decrease the paper's market size and reputation for breaking news (as it did with Watergate and Snowden). Bezos's decision doesn't impact the news side, which reports on breaking news. The paper's editor in chief made a public statement backing that notion.

mmooss 2y ago
That's what he says, but most of his announcement is obvious falsehoods and propaganda. Why should we trust him? Obviously he intends to use his power to get what he wants, without regard to anyone else's perspectives. Note that they rejected an advertisement criticising Elon Musk, for example. That's not a news article, but it definitely looks biased.

mmooss 2y ago

> For decades they have dutifully aired competing perspectives from the political left and right as well as major international players of different stripes. I'd say they were clearly on the left since ~2017, but had other perspectives as well.

righthand 2y ago
Arguably any main newspaper of a city of any size would obviously align with the beliefs of the residents of said city.
- mmooss 2y ago
  How does that explain the NYT and WSJ (and NY Post) in the same city? The current LA Times?
  - righthand 2y ago
    NY Times the main newspaper and it mostly aligns with the left. Not sure what’s confusing about that. The others aren’t the main newspaper of that city. It’s not a rule or law but an observation and it does seem pretty accurate. I’m not sure what you’re asking, I don’t read the LA Times, was it bought out by a known right-wing wealthy person or something?
    - mmooss 2y ago
      > NY Times the main newspaper and it mostly aligns with the left. Not sure what’s confusing about that. The others aren’t the main newspaper of that city. The NY Post and Wall Street Journal are among the main newspapers in NYC. > I don’t read the LA Times, was it bought out by a known right-wing wealthy person or something? The owner has openly killed left-wing editorial and supported the right (including Trump). > It’s not a rule or law but an observation and it does seem pretty accurate. If you can find evidence for it. It doesn't seem true in NY or LA.
      - 2y ago

mjfl 2y ago

for decades they have been a mouthpiece for the CIA and the deep state. Bezos is clearing house.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
AnonymousPlanet 2y ago
It looks like a bunch of billionaires are establishing exactly what they purport to end, cresting that swamp they said they would dry. Makes you wonder how much of those allegations were true in the first place.
- mjfl 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - singleshot_ 2y ago
    I had gotten the impression we weren’t supposed to denigrate each other as animals in this community.
    - mjfl 2y ago
      not my best comment, but I can't delete it now.

will4274 2y ago

The idea of competing perspectives from the political left and right is majorly under attack. In 2020, the NYT fired the editor who oversaw the opinion page for publishing the perspective of an influential senator who had the ear of the president. WaPo had similar internal debates, with many staff members loudly objecting to the publishing of perspectives from the political right. There's an school of thought that says when you can't win, you should try to lose as painlessly as possible. This change looks a lot like that.

selfmodruntime 2y ago

> This is a very big change at the Post. For decades they have dutifully aired competing perspectives from the political left and right as well as major international players of different stripes We must've read two different WaPos.