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.
The Washington Post has not commented on the reported numbers.
The famed Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward said on Tuesday he disagreed with the paper’s decision, adding that the outlet was “an institution reporting about Donald Trump and what he’s done and supported by the editorial page”.
Bezos framed the decision as an effort to support journalists and journalism, noting that in “surveys about trust and reputation, journalists and the media have regularly fallen near the very bottom, often just above Congress”.
But in this election year, he noted, the press had fallen below Congress, according to a Gallup poll.
“We have managed to fall below Congress. Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working,” he wrote.
A survey published by the New York Times over the weekend found that the mainstream media were trusted less than social media and 55% of poll respondents thought the media bad for democracy.
The Washington Post’s decision to forgo a presidential endorsement follows a growing trend in the newspaper business, which has mostly been hemorrhaging revenue and readership.
Gannett-owned USA Today, with the fifth-largest print and fourth-largest digital subscriber circulation, said on Tuesday that neither it nor more than 200 local papers under its umbrella would endorse a candidate.
I know it will only put a minor dent in his vast Scrooge Mcduckian vault of gold that he hoards, but the schadenfreude is still so sweet.
A billionaire doesn't buy a news organization for money, they buy it for power - and every lost subscriber is a little less of that. Losing over 10% of your subscribers in one go is huge.
It is also a calculated loss.
It is better to hammer the 90% than to remain on sheep clothes for the 100%
Same with Cusk They want a cesspool, they want to silence people.
Lolz
Last post was 8%, now 10%, how soon until we get 100%?
"the subscriber dashboard is no longer visible to employees"
Perfect, fixed the problem boss!
"Trust in media is down...something needs to change. "
Owner over rides media which erodes trust further.
This chuckle fuck really thinks it's the journalists that have eroded the trust and not dipshits like him controlling the narrative.
Remember this anyone someone claims billionaires earned their wealth with wit. These are not smart people. They are exploiters.
The Einsteins of the world never become wealthy because winning in capitalism is antithetical to intellectual capacity. Empathy and morality are natural byproducts of knowledge.