There have been a few updates highlighted below since this was published last night on key stories.
Latest Activist Tantrum Hits Washington Post
Every few months, a cycle emerges where members of major news publications throw a public tantrum because their outlets do not align closely enough with their ideologies.
This was evident when:
The New York Times published an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton.
NBC News hired Ronna McDaniel.
Politico allowed Ben Shapiro to contribute to their newsletter.
The latest instance involves The Washington Post staff and their union reacting with outrage to the organization’s decision not to endorse a presidential candidate. This pattern of activism within newsrooms poses dual threats:
Credibility damage: Insistence on ideological purity undermines the perceived neutrality and reliability of news organizations and causes trust issues with the public.
Financial impact: These trust issues have significant financial consequences. Last year, the Post reported a loss of $77 million as subscribers plummeted.
The uproar over not endorsing a candidate, which was unlikely to have any substantive impact on voter behavior, reinforces that these newsrooms have too many activists who feel entitled to an ideological bubble. This is exactly why these publications are struggling so much. But the activists responsible aren’t’ bothered by it because they feel entitled to these publications sponsoring their activism, even when it hurts the business.
Incredibly, Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos seems to understand all of this. He published an excellent op-ed noting much of what I have been pointing out forever in this newsletter. Bezos points out that the media has lost its credibility with the public due to perceptions of bias and that they are increasingly at-risk of irrelevance because of it.
While I do not think the refusal to endorse a candidate will fix the problem, Bezos’ instinct that they need to change course is obviously correct.
Updated:
The activists at the Washington Post reacted to Bezos not allowing the paper to endorse to try to change the perception that they are biased by publishing an article accusing Bezos of being motivated by corruption. The official Washington Post TikTok account posted a video with a similar insinuation. I can’t imagine any other business where the owner is subsidizing the employees' salaries despite the company consistently losing a ton of money and having the employees publicly attack and smear that owner. Some journalists at the Washington Post will try to frame it as evidence of independence, but it shows the extent of entitlement within the newsroom. They expect their activism to be subsidized regardless of profitability and will even attack those in charge of their jobs.
NYT Reporter Joins MMFA Plot to Demonetize Conservatives