Bezos Guts The Washington Post

From The New York Times, I'm Rachel. Abrams. This is The Daily. [music]. When Jeff Bezos bought The Washington. Post more than a decade ago, journalists inside and [music] outside. of the newsroom were cautiously. optimistic. Maybe he could revitalize. one of America's [music]. most storied news organizations. Brutal. blow to one of journalism's most. legendary brands, The Washington Post is. laying off [music] 1/3 of its staff. across all departments. Those hopes,

though, were dashed on Wednesday. when the paper laid off more [music]. than a third of its newsroom, affecting. nearly every section of the paper. The. [music] newspaper's books department. will close. Its Post Reports podcast. suspended. >> sports department and most of its. overseas journalists. Today, I talked to my colleague Eric Wemple. >> [music]. >> about what went wrong and what comes. next. >> [music]. >> It's Thursday, February 5th.

Eric Wemple, welcome to The Daily. Thank you. Thanks for having me. A lot. of people listening to our show today. probably have some kind of awareness. that people have been talking in really. apocalyptic terms about the state of. affairs at The Washington Post. And specifically, the layoffs that. happened on Wednesday, which were. described by many people as frankly a. bloodbath. And you, Eric, you are not only a media. reporter at The New York Times, but you.

also were a media columnist at The. Washington Post. And this is why we. wanted to talk to you today because of. this unique vantage point that you have. So, just to start, tell us what we know. about these cuts. So, this is an extremely grim outcome at The. Washington Post, a dark day, as many. people have been saying. We knew the. layoffs were coming, but they hit and. they hit with a tremendous amount of. force. And that analysis doesn't need to. extend that much. further than just saying that 300 people.

who practice journalism for the benefit. of American civic life have lost their. jobs, maybe lost their careers, and. their livelihood at least for some time. So, it doesn't really have to go beyond. that analysis. But, there is another. dimension to it, which is that this is. the Washington Post. And the Washington. Post right now is playing an enormously. important role in covering the. administration. for whom no headcount is really.

sufficient. So, that's what I would say about the. enormity of these events. What do we know at this point at about. 3:50 in the afternoon on Wednesday about. who was laid off? Well, we know that the cuts took about. 300 positions out of the newsroom. And this was a newsroom that was at. about 800 in terms of its headcount. It. had crested up above 1,100 several years.

ago, I think, and maybe in 2021, around. then. And since then, it has been an exercise. in retrenchment. The layoffs landed. disproportionately on the metro desk, the sports desk, and the international. coverage. Those are three areas that had. been rumored to be hit in recent weeks, recent months, and indeed, that's what. happened. It feels like there are many. different things happening at once at. the Washington Post. You've got a tough. business, you've got a billionaire. owner, you've got an entire industry.

struggling to figure out how to make it. in the age of the internet and social. media. So, which of these narratives. helps explain why a third of the. newsroom was laid off on Wednesday? The. question of what's happened to the post. is a little bit layered. Number one, the. Washington Post is a legacy regional. newspaper. And as a legacy regional. newspaper, it has business model problems, very. clear ones that relate to the drying up. of revenue streams, and that's across.

the industry. Add on to that that Jeff Bezos, in the. past couple of years, has made some of. the steps that have led to. the desertion of subscribers and. business model problems for the. Washington Post. that really don't come with the standard. issue crisis that we've seen over the. past few decades. So, that's how I'd put it, and I think that. that's one of the reasons why this is. such a big story. I want to rewind a little bit and go.

back to 2013, the year that Jeff Bezos. purchased the Post. And at the time, people, both inside and I think outside. journalism, were extremely optimistic. that this guy was going to basically. ride in on a white horse and infuse the. place with cash and help it realize its. ambitions. So, bring us back to that moment and tell us. kind of how things evolved from there. So, when Jeff Bezos bought the. Washington Post, he was buying. essentially the same sort of paper that.

we had seen fail in a lot of markets in. the United States, which is to say, a. struggling paper, a paper that had lost. staff, a paper that had lost a little. bit of vigor, and a paper that had lost. a fair bit of morale. I mean, it was still producing very good. journalism, but it was definitely not at. like the top of its game. It was a. newspaper in need of investment, especially since.

the demands of the time were to figure. out new ways of putting reporting and. content online, which was, frankly, a. very expensive thing to do. Right. So, Jeff Bezos buys the Washington Post. for $250 million, basically in the summer/fall of 2013 and. Bezos had this idea that this was a a. lofty a goal certainly a worthwhile. pursuit to turn this sort of distressed. property with a lot of social value, a.

lot of civic value, turn it around, make. it profitable. >> The newspaper industry needs new. approaches and you know, Jeff Bezos may. be the guy to to do that. We hope so at. the Washington Post. And there were a. lot of eager people who were really. happy and excited to be working with him. and I think that that was a powerful. combination for a new owner. >> [music].

>> I remember. reading a quote from Jeff Bezos at some. point that said something to the effect. of. when he was old one of the things he'd. be proudest of as part of his legacy was. the Washington Post and and helping to. turn that place around. And I remember. reading that and I remember the sense of. optimism that you are describing. But I. also remember Eric that there were some. concerns about editorial independence, concerns about what does it mean for a. person that rich, that influential, who.

has that many different business. interests to come in and take control of. a newspaper. There were absolutely. concerns about editorial independence. and I mean anytime you have a news. organization owned by a businessman of. such proportions, you're going to have. really really legitimate conflict of. interest concerns. But Bezos from the. very beginning. made it clear to news leaders of the. Washington Post that he would not. interfere in the coverage and. essentially said with respect to Amazon. and other interests of his, other.

companies and so on and so forth, whatever he would do, have at it. Cover. it the way you would any other company. He said all the right things to a group. of journalists. That's right. So what did he you next? So next after buying the place, he. invested in the place. He invested in. the politics coverage. He invested in. the international coverage. He invested. in the technology. The Post website was. sort of creaky. It would take a long. time to load. So the Washington Post. became more of a news technology company.

and less of this uh sort of old foggy. sort of read out where, you know, the. technology didn't work too well and it. was just let's see how many how many. pop-up ads do I have to fight off before. I get my content and so on and so forth. So Bezos really he brought the newspaper. ahead leaps and bounds with those. investments. He made it user-friendly. He made it much more user-friendly. Am I. making this up, Eric? Cuz I feel like I. remember around the time you're. describing suddenly seeing a lot more. articles that seemed like general.

interest on social media. I would see. things pop up on Instagram and things. that seemed like very user-friendly, very general interest. I remember having. the impression that they They seemed to. have like really be broadening their. reach in a like a technologically savvy. way. Yes, I mean under Bezos the Post. invested more in its audience teams and. how to reach people. You know, the the. cliche that now is you need to reach. your audience where it lies or where. where it sits or where it is. All that. sort of lingo. That was reality at the.

Post and it was much needed. And what. about Bezos's promise of staying out of. the news coverage? Well, I mean there. were many indications that he was indeed. staying out of the coverage as he had. promised to. The The Washington Post did. tremendous coverage of Amazon. It had. its own reporter on the company and a. lot of people were were looking for. signs that conflict of interest was. coming to roost at the Washington Post. and they didn't come up with much. And not only did they, you know, seem. independent, but they were really,

really knocking it out of the park. During this period the Post was doing an. extraordinary amount of excellent. journalism before Donald Trump's. election, after it, throughout that. term, the post was investigating him as. a candidate, as a president, along with. other major outlets in a way that I. believe was almost unprecedented in. American politics. They were delivering. scoops about his philanthropic. organizations, about his business.

operations, and then into his. administration first year. And if you. want to know how badly that offended Mr. Trump, you can just look at the lawsuit. that he filed against the Pulitzer board. a few years back. >> Right. And so, this was an era of. tremendous, tremendous journalistic. effort and output. >> They were breaking things that were. influencing the news. >> Yes, absolutely. And during those years, too, famously, the Washington Post came. up with a new motto, democracy dies in.

darkness. >> I remember. I think those years. represented. Bezos's promise fulfilled, an era of. tremendous success. So, during this period of what sounds. like a reinvigorated newsroom, how was it doing on the business side? Was it making money? Was there a. strategy? Yes, I mean, part of the strategy, of. course, was to ride the Trump bump. Let's be honest about that. But they did. a lot of things to improve the product. They were bringing on more subscribers.

month after month. And through those. initial Trump years, the post was. allegedly profitable. But then it fell. off a cliff sort of in the beginning of. the Biden administration, '21, '22, when. digital advertising sort of dried up and. audience dried up. It was not as. interesting a time from the viewpoint of. a news consumer. There weren't major. stories coming out of the White House. hour after hour on a Saturday morning. So, that was less news.

>> Mhm. And less crisis and fewer eyeballs, fewer clicks. That had a big impact on. the Post's business, and there was also. a slump in digital advertising to boot. So, what you have then is that the. Washington Post started losing a lot of. money year after year, up to like $100. million. And. and. the eerie sort of feeling you got. looking at this is that those systemic.

problems with the newspaper relating to. digital advertising, subscribers, those. problems. continue to haunt the Washington Post. ledger. Right. What you're saying is. essentially that the bump that the. Washington Post got in the years after. Trump was elected was not a response to. a new strategy, of a new business model. It was a response to Trump. And so, therefore, the Trump bump, this enormous.

influx of readers right after the. election in 2016, kind of papered over. an intractable problem that was much. more intractable than perhaps anybody. had anticipated. Yes, indeed. That is. essentially. what we've learned kind of the hard way. That the Post emerged from these years. of profitability, and then this one a. little bit sideways, that one a little. bit sideways. The audience wasn't fully. there, which means that the business. model isn't really robust. It can't.

handle anything less than optimal. circumstances. So, the Washington Post's business model. problems were such that even if you had. a management team that was making. reasonably smart and logical decisions, the paper would still be struggling. But, starting in 2024, Jeff Bezos took a number of steps that.

turned a problem into a genuine crisis. >> [music]. >> We'll be right back. So, Eric, before the break, you. mentioned that the post in 2024 hit the. state of crisis. I think I know what. you're talking about, but tell us what. happened.

Yeah, so what happened in 2024 was. really significant. The election proceeded with respect to. our coverage just as it always had. >> [snorts]. >> The news side was doing its articles, the editorial side was doing its. editorials and its op-eds, and things. were bumping along just fine. [music]. Now, as usually happened sometime in. late summer, early fall, the Washington. Post editorial board would begin. drafting and publish an endorsement of.

one of the candidates in the. presidential race. Mhm. And this was. [music] something that readers had come. to expect, but as we inched closer and. closer to the election, there was no editorial coming forth from. The Washington Post. Nothing was. published. Nothing was published, even. though people on the editorial board. were working on one and indeed had. mustered a draft endorsement in favor of. Democratic candidate Kamala Harris.

>> [snorts]. >> But, 11 days before the election, Will Lewis, the publisher, announced. that there would be a new policy, and. that policy was to not publish. endorsements at all in this race and in. future races. It was articulated as a. policy shift and not as some sort of. political decision. Yeah, to explain the. reaction to that a little bit. It was. epic. People went berserk on the. Washington Post. You mean people were.

writing in expressing their displeasure? Our digital messaging platforms were a. flame. They were very busy. and people answered immediately with. their money and they they canceled their. subscriptions. NPR reported that there were in excess. of 250,000 cancellations of. subscriptions against a subscriber base. that was about 2.5 million at the time. >> [music].

>> And Eric, why did people have that kind. of reaction given the fact that an owner. of a newspaper traditionally has the. right to influence the editorial page? Yes, that's traditionally the. prerogative of owners and it's been. cemented for decades in American. newspapering, but what was particularly. problematic here. was not necessarily that Bezos had. instituted a new policy per se. The issue was when it happened and what.

had preceded it. When it happened was 11 days before the. election and what preceded it was that. the Washington Post had a draft. endorsement for Kamala Harris in the. hopper ready to go. So, many people just. did the shorthand and say. Jeff Bezos killed the Kamala Harris. editorial. Now, the Washington Post's. statement was written to kind of prevent. that impression from taking hold, but it. wasn't very effective in doing that. Mhm. And a not insignificant portion of.

subscribers canceled, it seemed, because. of the decision to pull the endorsement. There was no uncertainty about the cause. and effect here. None. This drop happened because of this. decision and people at the Post were. livid about it and they were also. insistent. we should not be held liable for this. particular loss. This [snorts] one's on management. They. should take the consequences of this. awful decision and not foist it on us. via cutbacks, layoffs, buyouts,

whatever. I remember this moment as. really the first clearest example of. something happening that people had. worried would happen when Bezos bought. the paper, which is that he would make a. decision that at least seemed like it. was caving to power. In this case, giving what seemed like a gift to then. candidate Trump. Right. Well, you have a. lot of company in reaching that. conclusion is all I would say there. And. of course, that wasn't the end of it. Just months later in February of 2025.

Bezos just out of nowhere declared a. pivot in the Washington Post opinion. section's ideological outlook towards. personal liberties and free markets. And. that came out of the blue and again, people reached the conclusion that this. was. a way of pivoting the opinion offerings. in favor of Donald Trump and the GOP. Mhm. And then.

I would say that there was a a dismay. that deepened over the course of several. months. I think that there started to be. a growing dissatisfaction with. leadership and a number of people took a. buyout to leave. Other people just chose. to leave. Including you, right? Including me. That was my wife who. slapped me and said, "Wake up, Bucko.". Pretty much. Because I was sort of in a. state of denial about where everything. was headed. Mhm. Yeah, I think a lot of. us had that same.

sort of feeling that we have been at. this institution for so long. It had. been so steady. It had been so reliable. that we could not believe that the. ground was shifting underneath our feet. But there is and was a sentiment there. that things were just not very well. managed and very well thought through. And that had never been the case before. And that was I think the factor that.

drove a lot of departures and drove a. lot of dissatisfaction. It feels worth noting that none of what. we are talking about is happening in a. vacuum. The layoffs in particular that. have happened this week. Jeff Bezos just paid $75 million to a. company controlled by Melania Trump, the. first lady, for a documentary. It's an exorbitant amount of money. It's. caused a lot of people to say that this. is nothing short of a transparent. attempt to cozy up to the. administration. Amazon is also one of. the top donors to the East Wing Ballroom.

project the president has pursued. And all of this is happening at a time. of unprecedented attacks on the press, including at the Washington Post where a. journalist recently had her home. searched by the FBI. And so. I think a lot of people are probably. listening to this and have heard all of. this context and and are thinking about. all of the other things going on right. now in the world and in the world of. journalism and they're wondering, do. these cuts that we are talking about fit. into that backdrop in any way?

I am going to say. if you are going to cut a newsroom to. please Donald Trump in any way, I think. that those cuts would have been. different. In other words, they would. have. gone first after the investigative. capacity, the politics desk, the. national security desk of the Washington. Post. Those desks have done the greatest. damage over the years to President. Trump. Mhm. And the desks that you just.

outlined, to be clear, those are. remaining intact. Well, those are. remaining more intact than the ones that. they targeted. Management has said that. the cuts affected pretty much all areas. of the newsroom, but the most directly. affected, the most proportionately deep. cuts fell on the metro, sports, and the. international staffs. So, I don't think that that particular read. is operative here.

>> Mhm. The broader critique at play, I. think, is just that Bezos is gutting the. newsroom that he wants propped up and. that he wants invested in it and. that he expanded. So, you we're basically seeing a. clawback of the investment that he put. into the newsroom. It's basically like a boomerang. So, that is kind of a cataclysm at the. Washington Post. That is a major, major. media story. Why double down on the desks that you.

mentioned, national security, politics, investigations? Why are those desks the. ones that he and the rest of the. leadership are banking on? Well, the explanation is that they have. found through looking at the data, through looking at the analytics, the. areas that readers want, and they've. de-emphasized the ones that readers. don't want. Mhm. We don't have all their. analytics. But, that's the rationale. That they. looked at the analytics, they decided.

that this was the way to go, and that. this was the route to saving the. institution. Saving by shrinking the. institution, though. >> Yes. I can understand why that might make. sense to double down on what you believe. to be your core. product, but I want to read you. something that Jeff Bezos said when he. bought the paper. I don't think you can keep shrinking the. business. You can be profitable and. shrinking, and that's a survival. strategy, but it ultimately leads to. irrelevance, at best. And at worst, it.

leads to extinction. So, how does that square, if it squares. at all, with the idea of doubling down. on just those few core areas? Well, I do. think that there is some logic there. And that is that the Post has had a. tremendous run in these areas. The. problem is that they are cutting all. kinds of stuff. that people have enjoyed in the past. And whenever a newspaper cuts, there is a desertion.

And that desertion basically lowers. their revenue. It cuts into their. revenue because subscribers leave, digital advertisers don't see as much. content they want to be adjacent to, and. so you get into sort of a spiral, which. people in the industry call a death. spiral, where you cut the product, people desert the paper, revenues go. down, you cut more, people desert, you cut more. And and and. it's a self-reinforcing cycle, and it's.

misery. And there is no guarantee. whatsoever that the Post is not. descending into one of those spirals. Because there is an open question as to. whether doubling down on these areas is. going to float the business model. There. is just no guarantee that it will. I want to read you one more thing, Eric, and this is a quote from Marty Baron's. statement on Wednesday. Marty Baron, former executive editor of the. Washington Post. And his statement says,

"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." Looking at all. the cuts that you've outlined, looking. at the reaction from people both inside. and outside the Post talking about this. in, as I mentioned, apocalyptic terms, what do you think. we can say about the Post's ability to.

do the kind of journalism we have come. to expect and rely on from this paper? Well, I would say we should never sell. short. the abilities of the journalists that. are there. When a story emerges, they will get on. it. And they will continue. investigating, they will continue. breaking news, they will continue. kicking ass in journalism. So, people. [music] will continue I will continue to. subscribe to the Washington Post as I.

have for decades. Nothing will make me. ever stop my subscription to the. Washington Post. I get it in print. I. read it every day. I've read it through. this tumult, too. Every day, I find plenty to read in the. Washington Post. It will not stop. producing really good journalism. >> [music]. >> What will happen is we will never see. the stuff that they just don't have the. manpower to produce. So, this becomes. something that is utterly ineffable, utterly invisible, and utterly.

impossible to quantify. That there will be things going on in. the world that the Washington Post does. not have the resources or the eyes to. see through. >> [music]. [music]. >> Eric Wemple, thank you so much for. joining us. Well, thank you for having. me.

We'll be right [music] back. Here's what else you need to know today. We currently have an unprecedented. number of counties communicating with us. now. >> [music]. >> and allowing ICE to take custody of. illegal aliens before they hit the. streets. Unprecedented. cooperation. >> [music]. >> On Wednesday, the President's orders are.

Tom Homan said the government would. immediately withdraw 700 officers from. Minneapolis. >> [music]. >> after local officials agreed to increase. their cooperation with federal. immigration agents. The cooperation Homan said involves. local officials allowing ICE agents. [music] to take custody of undocumented. immigrants before they are released from. jail. More officers taking custody of. criminal aliens directly from the jails. means less officers on the street. doing criminal operations. And.

the Supreme Court has cleared the way. for [music] California to use a new. congressional map explicitly designed to. help Democrats in this fall's midterm. elections. The justices rejected [music]. an emergency request by the California. Republican Party to block the map. Democrats [music] redrew the state's. congressional districts last year to. counter a similar effort undertaken by. Republicans [music] at President Trump's. behest in states like Texas. Today's episode [music] was produced by. Carlos Prieto, Shannon Lynn, and Eric.

Krupke. It was edited by Devon Taylor. and Lisa Balin. Contains music by Dan. Powell, Sophia Landman, [music]. Diane Wong, and Rowan Nemirow and was. engineered by Chris Wood. >> [music]. >> That's it [music] for the daily. I'm. Rachel Abrams. See you tomorrow.