By midday on Monday, over 200,000 people had canceled their digital subscriptions to the Washington Post after the paper chose not to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris for president, according to National Public Radio. This number, which could have since increased, accounts for approximately 8% of the paper’s total paid circulation of 2.5 million subscribers, including print. Additionally, several columnists have resigned from the Post, owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos through his private investment firm, Nash Holdings LLC.
The Post had an editorial all set to endorse Harris for president, but that was before it was revealed last week that Bezos had blocked the endorsement. The move was seen as an effort to protect the Post from accusations of partisanship and a potential conflict of interest, given that Trump and Bezos are both investors in space exploration company Blue Origin. The move has also fueled speculation that Bezos is tending the election in favor of Trump and Harris’s rival, Joe Biden.
In a Post op-ed, Lewis preemptively denied accusations that the lack of an endorsement is either a “tacit endorsement of one candidate or condemnation of another,” adding that he supported readers making their own decisions. However, the editorial staff’s decision to withdraw their endorsement will unlikely save the Post from losing millions of readers and subscribers in the long run.
If the trend continues, a loss of that magnitude would be devastating to the Post, which has been struggling with financial headwinds. Its digital subscriptions account for most of its revenue, and the loss of those subscribers could lead to layoffs across the newsroom. The snub of Harris comes only days after Patrick Soon-Shiong, the Los Angeles Times billionaire owner, decided to block a potential LA Times endorsement of Harris. This financial strain could significantly impact the Post’s ability to deliver quality journalism.
Both moves seem to violate a longstanding principle in journalism: News outlets should not offer their opinions on political issues but rather report and analyze the facts. This departure from journalistic integrity is likely to disappoint many readers. They also appear to fit the “anticipatory obedience” definition outlined in Tim Snyder’s book On Tyranny, which describes how an authoritarian regime cultivates its followers to give up their liberty in exchange for security and prosperity.
Many of the Post’s subscribers are likely still to renew their subscriptions. Still, the rout in cancelations shows how important it will be for the newspaper to deliver on its promise of “journalism with a capital J,” especially as the presidential race grows ever closer. The threat of a future under a Trump administration becomes more pronounced. If the Post can’t deliver on that promise, it will have squandered its credibility with a generation of new readers. That’s a risk the publication can ill afford to take, given the crucial role of the media in shaping public opinion.
