Even before the boycott, the Washington Post was projected to lose $77 million this year, according to a report.
After billionaire owner Jeff Bezos stopped endorsing Kamala Harris, the paper lost 250,000 subscribers.
Even before the recent boycott movement, the Washington Post was already facing financial difficulties.
A recent meeting at The Post newsroom was revealed by a report from New York Magazine's Intelligencer, which shed light on the paper's projected loss of $77 million this year. This figure does not include the 250,000 subscribers lost due to billionaire owner Jeff Bezos' last-minute decision not to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris in the presidential race's final days.
"It's not surprising," a Post staffer told Planet Chronicle Digital. "It means 'brace yourself.'"
The $77 million in reported losses of Washington Post publisher Will Lewis in May corresponds to the exact figure of losses the paper reported over the previous year.
Staffers reported that anger and fear levels are both extremely high.
"Another staffer informed the magazine that the top stories that convert 200 readers to subscribers are being done well. However, we lost 250,000 through naïveté and poor decision-making."
The Post, which has experienced a significant loss of high-profile talent in recent years, may face further departures as some of its "most valuable journalists" explore opportunities at other publications, citing the demands of the new Trump administration as a reason.
The Washington Post refused to disclose its revenue figures when queried by Planet Chronicle Digital.
For years, the "Democracy Dies in Darkness" paper has been plagued by financial difficulties, but the newsroom was thrown into chaos after Bezos stopped the editorial board's endorsement of Harris, introducing a new policy that prohibits endorsements of presidential candidates.
The backlash against that statement was swift and resulted in the loss of 250,000 liberal subscribers, which NPR noted was about 10% of its 2.5 million total subscribers.
An op-ed defending the decision was written by Bezos, who cited increasing media mistrust as the reason.
"To be accurate and believed as such is crucial, but we are falling short on the second requirement. The majority of people believe the media is biased, and those who deny this are ignoring reality. Reality is an unbeatable force, and we cannot blame others for our decline in credibility. A victim mentality will not help, and complaining is not a solution. We must take control of what we can to increase our credibility."
"Although not enough to significantly increase trust, refusing to endorse presidential candidates is a step in the right direction. I regret not making the change earlier, during a time less emotionally charged. This was due to inadequate planning, not a deliberate strategy," Bezos later admitted.
media
You might also like
- Courtroom drama ends with 'vindication' for CNN plaintiff: 'I'm glad it's over'
- Liberals should embrace 'intellectual honesty' and criticize local leaders regarding the California fires, according to Maher.
- Piers Morgan interrupts woman's rant about 'White man mantra': "Complete and utter halfwit"
- Martin Luther King III and Arndrea Waters King discuss using Dr. King's legacy to strengthen communities.
- Michelle Obama receives high praise from 'View' co-hosts for not attending the inauguration.