Will Bezos Turn The Washington Post Around?

[JoePepsiCo]

But it's not losing any money because of liberal politics.

It might be.

Its target audience, however, has "moved on" to other mediums of communication/information/opinion.

Its target is a bubble that may have burst because they are either too redundant or, more likely, too tame.

I make that assertion based mainly on the posting styles of the two sides of the political debate on this forum.

 

[ll74]

The organization is a hot mess. It’s undeniable. Over a quarter million lemmings have cancelled their subscriptions and several senior staffers have resigned because the owner decided not to run an endorsement of Kamala Harris. Oh by the way, it’s lost $77 million in the last year. Their collective slide to irrelevance is painful but you can help stop the bleeding. Subscribe today.

If you think that is bad, you should see the horse and buggy industry

 

[Wat_Tyler]

I find it amusing that people are shocked when the boss does something boss-like, especially since he's the one paying the bills.


I'd wager that the non-endorsement of Kamala is a silent campaign contribution to the other guy.

 

[ll74]

I find it amusing that people are shocked when the boss does something boss-like, especially since he's the one paying the bills.


I'd wager that the non-endorsement of Kamala is a silent campaign contribution to the other guy.

Refusing to do what journalists have always done because it's difficult isn't a "boss move". It's a cowardly move.

The party of masculinity....lol

 

[JoePepsiCo]

I find it amusing that people are shocked when the boss does something boss-like, especially since he's the one paying the bills.


I'd wager that the non-endorsement of Kamala is a silent campaign contribution to the other guy.

Bet hedging.

Retaliation avoidance.

Did you contribute? The answer had always better be yes.

So, they give to both sides and pray that the politicians stay bought...

 

[Wat_Tyler]

Bet hedging.

Retaliation avoidance.

Did you contribute? The answer had always better be yes.

So, they give to both sides and pray that the politicians stay bought...

Hillary always treated 'em like Gotti treated Castellano.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

Yes.

Democrats are very open as to what they think of any opposition.

 

[JoePepsiCo]

He does have fuck you money.

A thing like that could go to your head.

I think personally, I would do a Howard Hughes...,

 

[JoePepsiCo]

I would not want the slings and arrows aimed at my outrageous fortune...

 

[DeluxAuto]

I would not want the slings and arrows aimed at my outrageous fortune...

No chance of that happening, dial-up internet guy.

 

[HumpDayHoratio]

It might be.

Its target audience, however, has "moved on" to other mediums of communication/information/opinion.

Its target is a bubble that may have burst because they are either too redundant or, more likely, too tame.

I make that assertion based mainly on the posting styles of the two sides of the political debate on this forum.

They’ve “moved on” alright. Like into the next realm! The daily fish wrapper is an outdated forum. Forgive me if this has been mentioned earlier. The one’s not pushing up daisies have moved on to more modern forums as you alluded to.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

WaPo admission. Better late than never.

Democrats tried to make fidelity to science, facts and truth their distinguishing characteristic as a party. The White House’s aggressive coverup of Mr. Biden’s decline undermined that claim. Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minnesota) was the only lawmaker willing to challenge Mr. Biden for the Democratic presidential nomination. He was ostracized and lost his spot in House leadership. Mr. Biden’s allies concocted terms such as “cheap fakes” to dismiss embarrassing video clips in which Mr. Biden appeared dazed, confused, tired and inaudible. Allies of the president frequently labeled content they didn’t approve of as “disinformation,” cheapening the term. When a few journalists reported accurately on Mr. Biden’s decline, the White House fed critical talking points about their stories to others in the media.


The harder they spun, the less believable they became. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said days after the June 27 debate that Mr. Biden was “as sharp as ever.” Eventually, Mr. Biden bowed to reality and stepped aside. But Ms. Harris struggled whenever she was asked to explain her defenses of Mr. Biden. On Oct. 22, NBC’s Hallie Jackson pressed Ms. Harris five times on this topic. The vice president dodged when asked whether she ever saw anything like what happened during the debate behind closed doors. “It’s a judgment question, that’s why I ask,” Ms. Jackson responded. “Can the American people trust you in these moments, even when it’s maybe uncomfortable?” Ms. Harris did not answer directly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/08/democrats-lost-credibility-harris-biden/

 

[HisArpy]

Bezos has only 1 real option if he wants the WaPo to survive - fire the entire lot of journalists currently on staff and hire new ones who will just report the news.

I imagine journalism colleges will have lots of candidates with resumes ready to apply. Bezos can pick from that list and hire those who actually still believe in neutrality.

Otherwise his media footprint is going to vanish. It might even taken him down a few notches financially when it does.

 

[Rightguide]

I think the legacy media is dead or dying.

https://nypost.com/2024/10/31/media...-weighs-spin-off-of-declining-cable-networks/

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/14/media/abc-disney-reliable-sources/index.html

The WaPo lost 77 million last year.