Reader backlash against decision not to make presidential endorsement rolls on despite Bezos defense of decision

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

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      5·
      3 hours ago

      But not necessarily for the reasons you think.

      It was pretty much exactly the reasons I thought.

      Note the other facet is not just the odds being close, but the consequences being different. If Trump wins, these people know he will be vindictive. In his first term he killed a $10 billion deal with Amazon due to WaPo’s coverage and taking it out on Bezos at large. If Harris wins, then she’s expected to be more proper, so kowtowing to Trump wouldn’t have a downside. So bad behavior to a point is rewarded even in a good outcome, because the good behavior response doesn’t call to be all pissy over this sort of thing.

      Of course, would be mitigated if huge businesses chock full of ulterior motives didn’t outright control big journalism outlets.

      • Ultraviolet@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        2 hours ago

        I forget the exact name of it, but there’s a game theory problem adjacent to but not exactly the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Everyone votes yes or no, and if yes wins, everyone loses $20, but everyone who voted no loses $200. If no wins, nothing happens.

        This is basically a variation of that problem.