Washington Post staffer claims low morale, colleagues suspect management is being dishonest: "A lot of sadness here"

Some Washington Post staff are upset that executive editor Matt Murray is not disclosing the number of subscriptions that have been canceled since the paper refused to endorse Vice President Kamala Harris.

Despite years of hostility toward former President Trump and a reported endorsement of Harris already drafted and ready to publish, the Post announced last week that it wouldn't endorse a candidate in the upcoming presidential election, causing outrage among many liberal readers who canceled their subscriptions and urged others to do the same.

This week, Elahe Izadi, the Post's in-house media reporter, reported that 250,000 subscribers had canceled since the "decades-long practice of endorsing presidential candidates" was abolished. A Post spokeswoman declined to comment to the Post's own media reporter, which was included in the Post's report.

A current employee of The Post believes that management should be more transparent, despite the company's policy of not sharing such data with the public, as noted by Izadi.

A current staffer told Planet Chronicle Digital that in a staff meeting earlier this week, Matt Murray was asked to confirm media reports about the number. However, he stated that he didn't know them. Some colleagues believe that his response was a lie.

Another Washington Post employee proposed a different interpretation, suggesting that Murray was merely indicating he didn't want to verify the figures because he wanted to observe the outcome.

The second staffer informed Planet Chronicle Digital that although the believability of his statement was questionable, he maintained at the meeting that he intentionally did not seek to know because he wanted things to calm down. He also mentioned that the election would impact the number of subscriptions, with individuals either ending or adding them based on the results.

Since Jeff Bezos named William Lewis publisher and CEO of The Post last year, morale at the paper has been questionable, with a series of issues including layoffs and a dire financial situation.

Earlier this year, Lewis informed staffers that they were losing large amounts of money, their audience had halved, and people were no longer reading their content.

Since then, the Post's reporters have been on edge, as stated by the employee.

The Post staffer stated, "It seems our publisher doesn't like us, so there's an element of 'Ugggg here we go again'."

"What just happened has left people feeling uncertain about their next steps."

In an op-ed, Bezos defended the paper's decision not to endorse a presidential candidate, stating that Americans are losing trust in the media, with a Gallup poll showing the media falling below Congress in trustworthiness. He wrote, "Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working."

Bezos stated that there was no "quid pro quo" involved in the decision to endorse a presidential candidate and that the meeting with the boss of Blue Origin and former President Trump was a coincidence, emphasizing that there is no connection between the two events.

Some believe that Bezos will continue to stay away from interfering with the paper's journalism, while others understand that "you don't go from zero meddling to pulling an actual piece without reason," and the only possible explanation is related to money and Trump.

The employee stated that many colleagues believe that if Bezos desires a neutral paper, then the number of new subscribers who signed up for the Post with the expectation of nonpartisanship should be made available.

"I don't know how many subs we picked up," they said.

The Post did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Post has consistently criticized Trump, calling him "dreadful" and "uniquely unqualified" in 2016 and "the worst president of modern times" in 2020.

Planet Chronicle Digital’s David Rutz contributed to this report.