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

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      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.

  • robocall@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Billionaires never do anything benevolent. I speculate Bezos is refused the endorsement in case Trump wins and holds a grudge.

    • 4am@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      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.

  • blattrules@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    11 hours ago

    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.

    • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      85
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      14 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.

      • The Quuuuuill@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        14 hours 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

  • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Besos wipes his ass with those 250K subscribers. What he needs is to be stripped of his wealth.

    • xantoxis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      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.

  • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    ·
    14 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.

    • Artyom@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      10 hours ago

      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.

  • goldteeth@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    14 hours 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.

  • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    edit-2
    14 hours 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.

    • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 hours 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?

      • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          12 hours 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.

      • Teils13@lemmy.eco.br
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours 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.

    • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      14 hours 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.

      • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours 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.

  • JaymesRS@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours 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.~
    • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      Unless the former subscribers were executed, that’s not the literal definition of decimate.

      • JaymesRS@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Historically (dating back to the 1600s) it could also be used for tithing or taxing one tenth of an amount too. Are you executing their money?

  • mercano@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    14 hours 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.