Key bits that stand out to me: "a third of its entire workforce" "to compete in the era of artificial intelligence" sports desk, books section, and Post Reports podcast discontinued international...
Key bits that stand out to me:
"a third of its entire workforce"
"to compete in the era of artificial intelligence"
sports desk, books section, and Post Reports podcast discontinued
international desk shrinks, Ukraine bureau chief let go along with entire Middle East desk
the reporter that covers Amazon was let go
"Several former editors said it appeared the paper was seeking to compete more with such specialized publications as Politico and Punchbowl rather than The New York Times."
The choices about letting people go who cover Ukraine, the Middle East, and Amazon seem, to me, aimed at serving Russian and billionaire interests. And it's obscene for one of the wealthiest people on earth to do this.
It really is preposterous for people with such unimaginable wealth to be pinching pennies — nay, sabotaging the livelihoods of so many — instead of (heaven forfend) just spending some of that...
And it's obscene for one of the wealthiest people on earth to do this.
It really is preposterous for people with such unimaginable wealth to be pinching pennies — nay, sabotaging the livelihoods of so many — instead of (heaven forfend) just spending some of that unimaginable wealth. I mean, what else is it good for? It’s money. It’s literally for spending. What’s the endgame here? The impulse of relentless self-enrichment is a crippling pathology.
When you have Bezos beaucoup, the rules of running a business change. You don’t have to make a profit anymore. You can operate at a loss for years and still be daddy warbucks. You can make people’s lives better, not worse, and still be daddy warbucks. You can actually run a business to be proud of, instead of riding the shitty train of enshittification that makes those competing, poorer institutions so fucking miserable for everybody. You can actually give a damn and do worthwhile things and be a role model to people and still be daddy warbucks.
But no. You chose shit. Just more shitty shit. You’re a shitty billionaire, Jeff.
This all seemed kind of inevitable after Bezos completely tanked the reputability of the paper with that stunt during the 2024 election. It's what caused me to cancel my subscription.
This all seemed kind of inevitable after Bezos completely tanked the reputability of the paper with that stunt during the 2024 election. It's what caused me to cancel my subscription.
I am willing to give Bezos the benefit of the doubt that this is just cutting segments of the business that are unprofitable, with no ulterior motives. Newspapers aren’t doing well right now, and...
I am willing to give Bezos the benefit of the doubt that this is just cutting segments of the business that are unprofitable, with no ulterior motives. Newspapers aren’t doing well right now, and I’m sure they are losing quite a bit of money.
Still, I believe the Washington Post was doomed ever since the buyout. High quality journalism can never be funded by a patron. High quality (and low quality) investigative journalism is coming from YouTubers now because their incentives are aligned with the viewers. I don’t see that changing; the only place for conventional news companies now is in neutral reporting like the AP and in perpetuating propaganda.
I don't think YouTubers are in any way a replacement. It's not like they have foreign bureaus. Also, video is a different medium; if anything, they're competing with TV news or documentaries....
I don't think YouTubers are in any way a replacement. It's not like they have foreign bureaus. Also, video is a different medium; if anything, they're competing with TV news or documentaries.
Substack-style newsletters are often an improvement on opinion columns since they have the space to go into more depth, but they're rarely doing actual journalism. (I do think the East Bay Insider is fairly decent for local news, but it's not written for a general audience.)
Agreed. Even the Youtubers I do enjoy often rely on traditional journalism as sources. To me, they're more meta-analysis or explainers in the mold of "Last Week Tonight" versus investigative...
I don't think YouTubers are in any way a replacement. It's not like they have foreign bureaus.
Agreed. Even the Youtubers I do enjoy often rely on traditional journalism as sources. To me, they're more meta-analysis or explainers in the mold of "Last Week Tonight" versus investigative journalism coming out of ProPublica. The loss of WaPo, even in the rough shape it was in following the buy out is extremely disturbing.
Post-truth zealots, particularly on the right, have won. AI slop is becoming extremely good and favorite tool of this lying administration. Cheap click bait "news" is free and good news is paywalled. Short form clips of loser comedians and tech podcast bros are the Cronkite's of the vertical video era that's cooking our attention span.
Yeah, this makes sense. Most of my criticisms actually are much more true of TV news than written articles. I’m disappointed I didn’t realize that myself when writing. I guess I’m too cynical...
Yeah, this makes sense. Most of my criticisms actually are much more true of TV news than written articles. I’m disappointed I didn’t realize that myself when writing. I guess I’m too cynical about the state of publication news right now and let my anger get in the way.
I think you may be looking at this with the wrong paradigm. Instead of youtube, think of all "news influencers" as a category. News influencers don't need foreign bureaus because there's always...
I think you may be looking at this with the wrong paradigm. Instead of youtube, think of all "news influencers" as a category. News influencers don't need foreign bureaus because there's always news influencers in every country (more or less - don't expect to see a reliable source from North Korea anytime soon).
They still have a problem with authority and vetting how reliable they are in general, but frankly most legacy news sources have become so unreliable that I think it's less of an issue than you might think.
Maybe this is more of a personal preference, but if someone cites a talking-head video on YouTube, that doesn't count as evidence as far as I'm concerned. An article written by a journalist does,...
Maybe this is more of a personal preference, but if someone cites a talking-head video on YouTube, that doesn't count as evidence as far as I'm concerned. An article written by a journalist does, whether it's in a newspaper or not.
When people use cameras to shoot what's going on out in the world, that does sometimes count (provided it's not faked) but I don't want to have to analyze that evidence myself.
I wouldn’t. Even if the Washington Post were profitable, say $100M per year, that’s economically irrelevant to Jeff Bezos. That would be on the order of about 0.5% of his net worth, which itself...
I am willing to give Bezos the benefit of the doubt that this is just cutting segments of the business that are unprofitable, with no ulterior motive
I wouldn’t. Even if the Washington Post were profitable, say $100M per year, that’s economically irrelevant to Jeff Bezos. That would be on the order of about 0.5% of his net worth, which itself routinely moves by tens of billions of dollars year to year. At that scale, profitability isn’t a meaningful constraint, so it’s hard to argue that business optimization alone explains the decisions being made. Once profit becomes negligible, there's some other ulterior motive.
High quality (and low quality) investigative journalism is coming from YouTubers now because their incentives are aligned with the viewers.
I don't think incentives on YouTube are better aligned with truth or quality. A newspaper journalist, at least in principle, has training, experience, editorial oversight, and institutional standards they’re accountable to. Those safeguards have eroded, but they still exist.
A successful YouTube “journalist,” needs only to attract and retain viewers. A seven-figure subscriber count tells us nothing about reporting quality, only about engagement. Once monetization enters the picture, incentives tilt toward attention, speed, and emotion, not accuracy or depth. That doesn’t mean good journalism can’t exist on YouTube, but it does mean the platform rewards the wrong things.
Agreed, but I’d argue that the type of person that is a billionaire doesn’t think in this way. “This 0.5% loss/gain is negligible” just isn’t the mindset of tech CEOs in my framework. They care...
I wouldn’t. Even if the Washington Post were profitable, say $100M per year, that’s economically irrelevant to Jeff Bezos. That would be on the order of about 0.5% of his net worth, which itself routinely moves by tens of billions of dollars year to year.
Agreed, but I’d argue that the type of person that is a billionaire doesn’t think in this way. “This 0.5% loss/gain is negligible” just isn’t the mindset of tech CEOs in my framework. They care purely about profit maximization, and see these companies all as independent operating entities. I understand that Bezos bought the company to influence the Post’s publication. I don’t believe that laying off 1/3 of staff in one swing is the method.
A successful YouTube “journalist,” needs only to attract and retain viewers. A seven-figure subscriber count tells us nothing about reporting quality, only about engagement.
I agree with your points re journalism and Youtube and different standards. I’d argue that the in-house publication, existing reputation, and subscriber “stickiness” of newspapers makes them a much more valuable target for a powerful bad actor wanting to change public narratives.
For what it is worth, I recognize that Youtube sucks in a lot of ways. Personally, I do not use it. Still, the (deserved) poor reputation of Youtube and the separation of publisher from creator is what enables it to host people that want to criticize existing powers. Google has substantial legal protection from Section 230 enabling it to publish content without liability. If a YouTuber is thinking “do I want to publish this or not?”, they only need to think about “will this bring in viewers?”. They generally don’t have a lot to lose.
On the other hand, an existing newspaper with substantial assets, operating income, powerful shareholders, etc. needs to consider if a publication will bring someone powerful knocking. This makes them risk-averse as long as they are not losing paying subscribers (and losing paying subscribers is much harder and slower than losing viewers on Youtube).
Perhaps I am too cynical. I agree with your criticisms of Youtube incentives as a platform. I just think the news institutions have lost their strength to the point where they can’t do their job effectively anymore.
Edit: I realized that my statements are more relevant to TV news platforms and their work. I’m probably wrong about written publications, and I don’t agree with what’s written here anymore; will need to think on it. I’ll leave it up for people to read and respond if they want to.
As 404 media stated, The Washington Post is No Longer Useful to Jeff Bezos. This fucking chud's networth is up 2.4 billion over last year and like so many of his billionaire pedo adjacent friends,...
That's great, but in business not everything is driven purely by profit. If a company can make 10x, 100x, or more in another line of business, especially if that line of business is a core focus...
That's great, but in business not everything is driven purely by profit. If a company can make 10x, 100x, or more in another line of business, especially if that line of business is a core focus and growing, the $50M line of business can be a distraction, and even seen by boards and investors as detrimental to the core operation. Usually in this type of situation, the right answer is to spin the unit off or have it acquired, and put the cash into growing the core business.
Do you have a source for that? I can only find revenue numbers. It doesn’t seem like Netflix split out operating profit for the DVD rental segment. Either way, it was a fast declining industry....
Do you have a source for that? I can only find revenue numbers. It doesn’t seem like Netflix split out operating profit for the DVD rental segment.
Either way, it was a fast declining industry. From 2015 to 2020 their DVD rental revenue went from $900m to $140m. It was a mere 0.6% of their total revenue by the end.
Even if it was still in the black, that money spent on warehouses and shipping logistics employees would be better spent increasing their real money maker by then, streaming.
Good point. I see that an argument can be made that while the profit is so insignificant in the big picture, they see profit maximization as a worthy game, perhaps even a hobby when you're a...
Agreed, but I’d argue that the type of person that is a billionaire doesn’t think in this way. “This 0.5% loss/gain is negligible” just isn’t the mindset of tech CEOs in my framework. They care purely about profit maximization, and see these companies all as independent operating entities.
Good point. I see that an argument can be made that while the profit is so insignificant in the big picture, they see profit maximization as a worthy game, perhaps even a hobby when you're a multi-billionaire.
I understand that Bezos bought the company to influence the Post’s publication. I don’t believe that laying off 1/3 of staff in one swing is the method.
I think it depends who he laid off. I understand a lot of good people had already left WaPo. There are probably still a lot of good ones, professionals who wouldn't stand for whatever direction Bezos is taking the business. With AI and a small group of hand-picked employees who are on board with whatever direction he wants to go, the big cut staff could make sense.
Key bits that stand out to me:
The choices about letting people go who cover Ukraine, the Middle East, and Amazon seem, to me, aimed at serving Russian and billionaire interests. And it's obscene for one of the wealthiest people on earth to do this.
It really is preposterous for people with such unimaginable wealth to be pinching pennies — nay, sabotaging the livelihoods of so many — instead of (heaven forfend) just spending some of that unimaginable wealth. I mean, what else is it good for? It’s money. It’s literally for spending. What’s the endgame here? The impulse of relentless self-enrichment is a crippling pathology.
When you have Bezos beaucoup, the rules of running a business change. You don’t have to make a profit anymore. You can operate at a loss for years and still be daddy warbucks. You can make people’s lives better, not worse, and still be daddy warbucks. You can actually run a business to be proud of, instead of riding the shitty train of enshittification that makes those competing, poorer institutions so fucking miserable for everybody. You can actually give a damn and do worthwhile things and be a role model to people and still be daddy warbucks.
But no. You chose shit. Just more shitty shit. You’re a shitty billionaire, Jeff.
This all seemed kind of inevitable after Bezos completely tanked the reputability of the paper with that stunt during the 2024 election. It's what caused me to cancel my subscription.
I am willing to give Bezos the benefit of the doubt that this is just cutting segments of the business that are unprofitable, with no ulterior motives. Newspapers aren’t doing well right now, and I’m sure they are losing quite a bit of money.
Still, I believe the Washington Post was doomed ever since the buyout. High quality journalism can never be funded by a patron. High quality (and low quality) investigative journalism is coming from YouTubers now because their incentives are aligned with the viewers. I don’t see that changing; the only place for conventional news companies now is in neutral reporting like the AP and in perpetuating propaganda.
I don't think YouTubers are in any way a replacement. It's not like they have foreign bureaus. Also, video is a different medium; if anything, they're competing with TV news or documentaries.
Substack-style newsletters are often an improvement on opinion columns since they have the space to go into more depth, but they're rarely doing actual journalism. (I do think the East Bay Insider is fairly decent for local news, but it's not written for a general audience.)
Agreed. Even the Youtubers I do enjoy often rely on traditional journalism as sources. To me, they're more meta-analysis or explainers in the mold of "Last Week Tonight" versus investigative journalism coming out of ProPublica. The loss of WaPo, even in the rough shape it was in following the buy out is extremely disturbing.
Post-truth zealots, particularly on the right, have won. AI slop is becoming extremely good and favorite tool of this lying administration. Cheap click bait "news" is free and good news is paywalled. Short form clips of loser comedians and tech podcast bros are the Cronkite's of the vertical video era that's cooking our attention span.
Yeah, this makes sense. Most of my criticisms actually are much more true of TV news than written articles. I’m disappointed I didn’t realize that myself when writing. I guess I’m too cynical about the state of publication news right now and let my anger get in the way.
I think you may be looking at this with the wrong paradigm. Instead of youtube, think of all "news influencers" as a category. News influencers don't need foreign bureaus because there's always news influencers in every country (more or less - don't expect to see a reliable source from North Korea anytime soon).
They still have a problem with authority and vetting how reliable they are in general, but frankly most legacy news sources have become so unreliable that I think it's less of an issue than you might think.
Maybe this is more of a personal preference, but if someone cites a talking-head video on YouTube, that doesn't count as evidence as far as I'm concerned. An article written by a journalist does, whether it's in a newspaper or not.
When people use cameras to shoot what's going on out in the world, that does sometimes count (provided it's not faked) but I don't want to have to analyze that evidence myself.
I wouldn’t. Even if the Washington Post were profitable, say $100M per year, that’s economically irrelevant to Jeff Bezos. That would be on the order of about 0.5% of his net worth, which itself routinely moves by tens of billions of dollars year to year. At that scale, profitability isn’t a meaningful constraint, so it’s hard to argue that business optimization alone explains the decisions being made. Once profit becomes negligible, there's some other ulterior motive.
I don't think incentives on YouTube are better aligned with truth or quality. A newspaper journalist, at least in principle, has training, experience, editorial oversight, and institutional standards they’re accountable to. Those safeguards have eroded, but they still exist.
A successful YouTube “journalist,” needs only to attract and retain viewers. A seven-figure subscriber count tells us nothing about reporting quality, only about engagement. Once monetization enters the picture, incentives tilt toward attention, speed, and emotion, not accuracy or depth. That doesn’t mean good journalism can’t exist on YouTube, but it does mean the platform rewards the wrong things.
Agreed, but I’d argue that the type of person that is a billionaire doesn’t think in this way. “This 0.5% loss/gain is negligible” just isn’t the mindset of tech CEOs in my framework. They care purely about profit maximization, and see these companies all as independent operating entities. I understand that Bezos bought the company to influence the Post’s publication. I don’t believe that laying off 1/3 of staff in one swing is the method.
I agree with your points re journalism and Youtube and different standards. I’d argue that the in-house publication, existing reputation, and subscriber “stickiness” of newspapers makes them a much more valuable target for a powerful bad actor wanting to change public narratives.
For what it is worth, I recognize that Youtube sucks in a lot of ways. Personally, I do not use it. Still, the (deserved) poor reputation of Youtube and the separation of publisher from creator is what enables it to host people that want to criticize existing powers. Google has substantial legal protection from Section 230 enabling it to publish content without liability. If a YouTuber is thinking “do I want to publish this or not?”, they only need to think about “will this bring in viewers?”. They generally don’t have a lot to lose.
On the other hand, an existing newspaper with substantial assets, operating income, powerful shareholders, etc. needs to consider if a publication will bring someone powerful knocking. This makes them risk-averse as long as they are not losing paying subscribers (and losing paying subscribers is much harder and slower than losing viewers on Youtube).
Perhaps I am too cynical. I agree with your criticisms of Youtube incentives as a platform. I just think the news institutions have lost their strength to the point where they can’t do their job effectively anymore.
Edit: I realized that my statements are more relevant to TV news platforms and their work. I’m probably wrong about written publications, and I don’t agree with what’s written here anymore; will need to think on it. I’ll leave it up for people to read and respond if they want to.
As 404 media stated, The Washington Post is No Longer Useful to Jeff Bezos. This fucking chud's networth is up 2.4 billion over last year and like so many of his billionaire pedo adjacent friends, they can't stomach the idea of something operating in service of the public good but instead need to extract wealth wherever possible.
Well, the DVD rental market going the way of the dinosaurs made that business decision pretty easy.
That's great, but in business not everything is driven purely by profit. If a company can make 10x, 100x, or more in another line of business, especially if that line of business is a core focus and growing, the $50M line of business can be a distraction, and even seen by boards and investors as detrimental to the core operation. Usually in this type of situation, the right answer is to spin the unit off or have it acquired, and put the cash into growing the core business.
Do you have a source for that? I can only find revenue numbers. It doesn’t seem like Netflix split out operating profit for the DVD rental segment.
Either way, it was a fast declining industry. From 2015 to 2020 their DVD rental revenue went from $900m to $140m. It was a mere 0.6% of their total revenue by the end.
Even if it was still in the black, that money spent on warehouses and shipping logistics employees would be better spent increasing their real money maker by then, streaming.
Good point. I see that an argument can be made that while the profit is so insignificant in the big picture, they see profit maximization as a worthy game, perhaps even a hobby when you're a multi-billionaire.
I think it depends who he laid off. I understand a lot of good people had already left WaPo. There are probably still a lot of good ones, professionals who wouldn't stand for whatever direction Bezos is taking the business. With AI and a small group of hand-picked employees who are on board with whatever direction he wants to go, the big cut staff could make sense.
Christ, what an asshole