They are losing money hand over fist. Katherine Graham would not have kept shovelling good money after bad either. The age of old line newspapers is over. The Internet makes them irrelevant. The journalists, and everybody else, laid off are not being destroyed. They do their work in more modern places. Remember, the Internet has dropped barriers to entry in journalism so much that we have more sources now -- not fewer. It is the start of a Golden Age for journalism and diversity of thought.
Losing money, whether “hand over fist,” “like water through a sieve,” or “ass over teakettle,” is no excuse for gutting a newspaper when you are sitting on a personal fortune that could float a small nation. Or a fleet of gigayachts. There long been an American tradition of the ultra-wealthy classing up their reputations by using a sliver of their wealth for the public good.
Jeff Bezos, with some $250 billion in his wallet(s), could underwrite a newspaper for what he probably spends on his personal trainer. Keeping the Post among the world’s top news organizations would amount to pocket change and a modest civic gesture, not to mention the tax write-offs he'd get from the loss. Instead, he suddenly starts looking at the bottom line, and the staff gets layoffs.
Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong’s cuts at the Los Angeles Times are similar. With a mere $12 billion to play with, the math still doesn't justify his belt-tightening. Maybe the real fear is that supporting a money-losing paper might nudge them a notch down the Forbes leaderboard (and I’m not holding my breath about seeing Pulitzer-level reporting on this story).
The NYT figured out how to combine print and digital and grow their business. The Post has lagged behind, tripping over its own strategy. Yes, the internet has lowered the barriers and handed everyone a megaphone, but look what the rise of blogs did to legit wine journalism. Deluting the field of experts led to delusion that democratizing this was a good thing, which led to the dissolution of "wine writer" as a viable career choice. Most internet journalism does little to fund writers, and without money, you are unlikely to get creative reporting, in-depth stories, or editing. PARTICULARLY editing. You wind up with recycled press releases, starry-eyed reports on press junkets and fancy meals you were invited to, and copy so sloppy it limps even after being polished by whichever AI company just bought the loudest Super Bowl ad. And I'm a wine flack, and am dismayed that outlets for writers are evaporating so quickly, and some seriously good writers no longer have a remunerative pulpit to preach from.
We canceled our subscriptions to both the Post and the LA Times when their owners hedged their political bets and weasled out of making a presidential endorsement. The race to the bottom in the news business is not just about papers ending up as birdcage liner.
Lots of grist there. To take our shared interest in wine writing:
"Yes, the internet has lowered the barriers and handed everyone a megaphone, but look what the rise of blogs did to legit wine journalism. Deluting the field of experts led to delusion that democratizing this was a good thing, which led to the dissolution of "wine writer" as a viable career choice."
Tes. People won't pay much for wine writing.
"Most internet journalism does little to fund writers, and without money, you are unlikely to get creative reporting, in-depth stories, or editing. PARTICULARLY editing. You wind up with recycled press releases, starry-eyed reports on press junkets and fancy meals you were invited to, and copy so sloppy it limps even after being polished by whichever AI company just bought the loudest Super Bowl ad."
Yes. And a lot of hagiographic durge as well.
"And I'm a wine flack, and am dismayed that outlets for writers are evaporating so quickly, and some seriously good writers no longer have a remunerative pulpit to preach from."
Something told me that.
People will pay for financial information (hence the success of the WSJ) and some specialised interests (hence Substack). They don''t care enough about wine to pay for a digital copy of what was in print. Innovation can help. For example, what advantages to the reader are there in having the "Wine Bible" on paper rather than online? Online wins on every metric. 100% current, instantly adaptable, available everywhere, etc. Funded by subscription.
"Jeff Bezos, with some $250 billion in his wallet(s), could underwrite a newspaper for what he probably spends on his personal trainer. Keeping the Post among the world’s top news organizations would amount to pocket change and a modest civic gesture, not to mention the tax write-offs he'd get from the loss. Instead, he suddenly starts looking at the bottom line, and the staff gets layoffs."
His spending will go on space travel. To keep The Washington Post going, if that is your desire, the market is your friend. Use the low barriers to entry to start its replacement. Prove the naysayers wrong.
Dave, I am so sorry for the journalists at the Washington Post. I have admired the paper ever since a kid watching All the President's Men and hearing about the bravery of the journalist and owner. Later, having become a wine journalist, I followed you and your wine column. However, in October of 2024, I unsubscribed from the Washington Post (me and 225,000+ others quickly followed) as the owner, Jeff Bezos's poor decision to block the planned endorsement of Kamala Harris came to pass. Surely the economic impact of those decisions hurt WAPO. This last month's horror in Minneapolis under the Trump administration has proven my instincts correct. I mourn for the great journalists at the paper, and, like you, know that many will go on to do great things. Cheers to Freedom of the Press. Tricia
Thanks, Dave. I spent 12 years as an editor there, in the building, and twice had group lunches, one small, with Katherine Graham. At the small one, with just eight of us around a table, one of whom was her son Don, I had neglected to bring a sport coat and felt horribly under-dressed. This did not stop her from singling me out and having a brief one-on-one with me afterward. I was travel editor, the least "important" person there. During lunch, she touched a button under the table and a team of three servers, all Black and wearing gloves, presented our meals. She was brave and smart and well-supported by immense talent, but an American aristocrat.
I remain honored to have spent part of my career there, and am aware of how deeply lucky I am to have done so. In a way, it's a relief that they are now taking this step of idiot decimation, making clear that Bezos has no intention of keeping his pledge of maintaining the paper as a public trust for years to come. It's becoming a cheapened outlet, nearly a tabloid with (hate to say) second-rate talent no longer energized by the writer-driven, editor-guided mojo that powered the place to the top for decades. There is no way to cut yourself to success, and the fools perpetrating this should know this, suggesting they plan to build it down toward impotence. The worst outcome I can imagine.
Thank you for writing this, Dave. The Post was the first newspaper I read, after my parents read our home-delivered copy each day. I mourned prior layoffs and the "loss" of the Op-Ed page but (unlike many friends) continued to subscribe to support the reporters doing the work we need so desperately. I am truly heartbroken, and I didn't work there. I am thinking of you.
The decimation of the First Amendment and of sources of quality journalism in the past year is astounding. Our meager subscription fees and paltry ad dollars don’t stand a chance to keep these institutions alive against the onslaught of the oligarchs.
Truly ironic that you write this on Substack, one of the "new channels" the Internet makes possible! The barriers to entry are lower than ever, Matt. Start a blog!
I was really struck by the words "When you show up to work every morning not knowing what your day is going to be like, you learn to adapt." Sorry they had to be written.
Trump has been a cancer on our society. Bezos was afraid of loosing contracts with his space venture and sacrificed the paper to save them. The bigger mistake is the cancer will grow and extend to his other businesses. Without surgery, chemo and radiation those entities will die or be taken over by the Trump family. Sounds like hyperbole but I can hear all those incredible journalists saying it will never happen. It did.
I know. I dropped the hard copy after 45+ years, and will be dropping the digital when the subscription runs out. As I wrote elsewhere, this is the journalistic equivalent of what's happening to the Kennedy Center. Makes me ill, and it's so pointless. How does getting rid of food writers, local coverage, etc., placate T-Rump? Will save my wine questions for another day.
And Bezos is investing a fortune in AI! Books and wine make us smarter. AI can't compare.
Please don't drop Book World. I count on it.
Great writing Mac.
Sad to learn that the WaPo died this week. I unsubscribed when they announced that the wine column is no more. Fuck anything Bezo.
They are losing money hand over fist. Katherine Graham would not have kept shovelling good money after bad either. The age of old line newspapers is over. The Internet makes them irrelevant. The journalists, and everybody else, laid off are not being destroyed. They do their work in more modern places. Remember, the Internet has dropped barriers to entry in journalism so much that we have more sources now -- not fewer. It is the start of a Golden Age for journalism and diversity of thought.
Losing money, whether “hand over fist,” “like water through a sieve,” or “ass over teakettle,” is no excuse for gutting a newspaper when you are sitting on a personal fortune that could float a small nation. Or a fleet of gigayachts. There long been an American tradition of the ultra-wealthy classing up their reputations by using a sliver of their wealth for the public good.
Jeff Bezos, with some $250 billion in his wallet(s), could underwrite a newspaper for what he probably spends on his personal trainer. Keeping the Post among the world’s top news organizations would amount to pocket change and a modest civic gesture, not to mention the tax write-offs he'd get from the loss. Instead, he suddenly starts looking at the bottom line, and the staff gets layoffs.
Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong’s cuts at the Los Angeles Times are similar. With a mere $12 billion to play with, the math still doesn't justify his belt-tightening. Maybe the real fear is that supporting a money-losing paper might nudge them a notch down the Forbes leaderboard (and I’m not holding my breath about seeing Pulitzer-level reporting on this story).
The NYT figured out how to combine print and digital and grow their business. The Post has lagged behind, tripping over its own strategy. Yes, the internet has lowered the barriers and handed everyone a megaphone, but look what the rise of blogs did to legit wine journalism. Deluting the field of experts led to delusion that democratizing this was a good thing, which led to the dissolution of "wine writer" as a viable career choice. Most internet journalism does little to fund writers, and without money, you are unlikely to get creative reporting, in-depth stories, or editing. PARTICULARLY editing. You wind up with recycled press releases, starry-eyed reports on press junkets and fancy meals you were invited to, and copy so sloppy it limps even after being polished by whichever AI company just bought the loudest Super Bowl ad. And I'm a wine flack, and am dismayed that outlets for writers are evaporating so quickly, and some seriously good writers no longer have a remunerative pulpit to preach from.
We canceled our subscriptions to both the Post and the LA Times when their owners hedged their political bets and weasled out of making a presidential endorsement. The race to the bottom in the news business is not just about papers ending up as birdcage liner.
(Jeez, talk about needing an editor!!)
Lots of grist there. To take our shared interest in wine writing:
"Yes, the internet has lowered the barriers and handed everyone a megaphone, but look what the rise of blogs did to legit wine journalism. Deluting the field of experts led to delusion that democratizing this was a good thing, which led to the dissolution of "wine writer" as a viable career choice."
Tes. People won't pay much for wine writing.
"Most internet journalism does little to fund writers, and without money, you are unlikely to get creative reporting, in-depth stories, or editing. PARTICULARLY editing. You wind up with recycled press releases, starry-eyed reports on press junkets and fancy meals you were invited to, and copy so sloppy it limps even after being polished by whichever AI company just bought the loudest Super Bowl ad."
Yes. And a lot of hagiographic durge as well.
"And I'm a wine flack, and am dismayed that outlets for writers are evaporating so quickly, and some seriously good writers no longer have a remunerative pulpit to preach from."
Something told me that.
People will pay for financial information (hence the success of the WSJ) and some specialised interests (hence Substack). They don''t care enough about wine to pay for a digital copy of what was in print. Innovation can help. For example, what advantages to the reader are there in having the "Wine Bible" on paper rather than online? Online wins on every metric. 100% current, instantly adaptable, available everywhere, etc. Funded by subscription.
"Jeff Bezos, with some $250 billion in his wallet(s), could underwrite a newspaper for what he probably spends on his personal trainer. Keeping the Post among the world’s top news organizations would amount to pocket change and a modest civic gesture, not to mention the tax write-offs he'd get from the loss. Instead, he suddenly starts looking at the bottom line, and the staff gets layoffs."
His spending will go on space travel. To keep The Washington Post going, if that is your desire, the market is your friend. Use the low barriers to entry to start its replacement. Prove the naysayers wrong.
Dave, I am so sorry for the journalists at the Washington Post. I have admired the paper ever since a kid watching All the President's Men and hearing about the bravery of the journalist and owner. Later, having become a wine journalist, I followed you and your wine column. However, in October of 2024, I unsubscribed from the Washington Post (me and 225,000+ others quickly followed) as the owner, Jeff Bezos's poor decision to block the planned endorsement of Kamala Harris came to pass. Surely the economic impact of those decisions hurt WAPO. This last month's horror in Minneapolis under the Trump administration has proven my instincts correct. I mourn for the great journalists at the paper, and, like you, know that many will go on to do great things. Cheers to Freedom of the Press. Tricia
Thanks, Dave. I spent 12 years as an editor there, in the building, and twice had group lunches, one small, with Katherine Graham. At the small one, with just eight of us around a table, one of whom was her son Don, I had neglected to bring a sport coat and felt horribly under-dressed. This did not stop her from singling me out and having a brief one-on-one with me afterward. I was travel editor, the least "important" person there. During lunch, she touched a button under the table and a team of three servers, all Black and wearing gloves, presented our meals. She was brave and smart and well-supported by immense talent, but an American aristocrat.
I remain honored to have spent part of my career there, and am aware of how deeply lucky I am to have done so. In a way, it's a relief that they are now taking this step of idiot decimation, making clear that Bezos has no intention of keeping his pledge of maintaining the paper as a public trust for years to come. It's becoming a cheapened outlet, nearly a tabloid with (hate to say) second-rate talent no longer energized by the writer-driven, editor-guided mojo that powered the place to the top for decades. There is no way to cut yourself to success, and the fools perpetrating this should know this, suggesting they plan to build it down toward impotence. The worst outcome I can imagine.
Thank you for writing this, Dave. The Post was the first newspaper I read, after my parents read our home-delivered copy each day. I mourned prior layoffs and the "loss" of the Op-Ed page but (unlike many friends) continued to subscribe to support the reporters doing the work we need so desperately. I am truly heartbroken, and I didn't work there. I am thinking of you.
The decimation of the First Amendment and of sources of quality journalism in the past year is astounding. Our meager subscription fees and paltry ad dollars don’t stand a chance to keep these institutions alive against the onslaught of the oligarchs.
Truly ironic that you write this on Substack, one of the "new channels" the Internet makes possible! The barriers to entry are lower than ever, Matt. Start a blog!
I’d venture to say that the reach of the Washington Post is far greater than any Substack Note.
Auld Lang Syne.... a toast to those no longer at the Post.
Thankyou, Dave
I was really struck by the words "When you show up to work every morning not knowing what your day is going to be like, you learn to adapt." Sorry they had to be written.
That's the daily life of a reporter, not meant to describe yesterday.
I got that.
So damn upsetting. They’re ruining everything.
Bastard Bezos: The Prince of Darkness. May you rot in printer's ink.
Sad day. Shame on Bezos - he could easily afford to underwrite WAPO if he wanted to.
Trump has been a cancer on our society. Bezos was afraid of loosing contracts with his space venture and sacrificed the paper to save them. The bigger mistake is the cancer will grow and extend to his other businesses. Without surgery, chemo and radiation those entities will die or be taken over by the Trump family. Sounds like hyperbole but I can hear all those incredible journalists saying it will never happen. It did.
I know. I dropped the hard copy after 45+ years, and will be dropping the digital when the subscription runs out. As I wrote elsewhere, this is the journalistic equivalent of what's happening to the Kennedy Center. Makes me ill, and it's so pointless. How does getting rid of food writers, local coverage, etc., placate T-Rump? Will save my wine questions for another day.