Dem
47
GOP
53
When Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post in 2013, many people breathed a sigh of relief as he saved the paper and brought it into the digital era. It did well for a number of years. During that period, there were essentially four national newspapers, the Post, The New York Times, the Rupert-Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal, and USA Today. Since the latter doesn't do a lot of deep-dive investigative reporting, that leaves only three serious national papers, and at the WSJ, any story Murdoch doesn't like won't make it. That left only the Times and Post to speak truth to power.
Yesterday, Bezos (well, his underlings, acting with his approval) fired a third of the Post's staff and eliminated entire departments and sections. Some of the cuts are not so important by themselves, but weaken the overall paper. For example, the Post will eliminate all sports coverage. That's not so important since there are plenty of other outlets covering sports in detail, but those subscribers who bought the Post for its sports coverage may now cancel. This weakens the overall financial picture. Foreign bureaus have been closed and coverage of foreign news will be cut way back.
Why did Bezos allow this? The paper has been in financial trouble for some time, but if he didn't like it anymore, he could have put it up for sale. Some newspaper chain, say, Gannet, McClatchy, or Hearst, would probably have bid for it. Or he could have created a foundation and put it in the foundation. But he didn't do that. What is he up to? We are not sure, but it looks like he is trying to destroy the paper so he can shut it down in such a way that all the reporters are gone and no one else can swoop in and rebuild it, the way he did when he bought it. So is he willing to throw away the $250 million he paid for it? Very possibly. That is peanuts to him. Still, what's the point of throwing away that money?
It is because Bezos is actually very stupid for such a smart man. Donald Trump hates the Post since he can't control it and the reporting is often unfriendly to him. If Bezos gradually kills it off, he is probably hoping that Trump will be grateful and then give Amazon and his space company, Blue Origin, billions in business. What he doesn't understand is that Trump doesn't do grateful. Not his thing. Loyalty is a one-way street with Trump. Giving Blue Origin more business will tick off Elon Musk, who owns SpaceX, and who is a far bigger Republican donor than Bezos. So very likely, the end game here is the end of the Post in due course and no new business for Bezos.
The Times is doing very well, mostly due to its games, cooking, puzzles, and other non-news related features. But having only one national newspaper that does investigative reporting and is not beholden to Rupert Murdoch is a terrible hit to democracy. And remember, the Times has been actively trying to get more conservatives to subscribe to it, so that could color its coverage in subtle (or not subtle) ways.
Democrats understand this scenario and are already complaining loudly. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) tweeted: "A devastating day for the paper of record in our nation's capital. Bezos just spent $40M sucking up to Trump with Amazon's 'Melania,' but is now cutting a third of [Post] staff—including much of the international & local teams—for 'budget' reasons? The corporate takeover of media is a threat to our democracy & the delivery of the truth to the American people." Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) posted: "We need tough, fair, independent reporting at home and abroad in order to keep our democracy. What a disappointing day. We all want to protect our democracy. That means facing this hard truth: right now it is facing greater danger at home than from any foreign threat."
Marty Baron, the former executive editor of the Post, had this to say: "This ranks among the darkest days in the history of one of the world's greatest news organizations. The Washington Post's ambitions will be sharply diminished, its talented and brave staff will be further depleted, and the public will be denied the ground-level, fact-based reporting in our communities and around the world that is needed more than ever." The Los Angeles Times used to be a serious national newspaper. Now, after Patrick Soon-Shiong got done with it, it is a local paper focusing on Southern California news and little else. Is this the Post's future?
Ruth Marcus, who worked at the Post for 40 years in many positions, wrote an article in The New Yorker headlined: "How Jeff Bezos Brought Down the Washington Post."
The Washington Post Guild, a union that represents some of the fired journalists, put out a statement saying: "If Jeff Bezos is no longer willing to invest in the mission that has defined this paper for generations and serve the millions who depend on Post journalism, then The Post deserves a steward that will." The Times' story doesn't gloat. It just reports the basic information in a straightforward way. The Atlantic's story on this has the title: "The Murder of The Washington Post." At The Guardian, the headline is "It's an absolute bloodbath: Washington Post lays off hundreds of workers." It is a sad day for journalism, news, truth, and democracy. (V)