The Washington Post layoffs are the latest death knell for a 125-year-old business model, driven not just by the internet but by the public's devaluation of truth.
I really appreciate this. I started my first newspaper job in 1986, at a small daily, making $400 a week. It was family owned with a matriarch publisher with ink in her veins. By the time I left 13 years later, the paper was in the hands of a big media company (sold, and resold, and eventually Warren Buffett gave up trying to make it profitable), and every year the staff numbers shrank. I hate to say that this was inevitable but I think it was. I can't remember a time when readers...consumers, subscribers ... didn't bitterly complain about paying for news, even when it was 25 cents a copy. I despise the Bezos ownership era, but one day that will pass. I don't feel optimistic about the future of newspapers, but I wonder whether NY Times has cracked a code. Our country needs journalists so very badly, now more than ever.
I had no idea WaPo still employed 800 journalists. The thought of all those layoffs is upsetting, to say the least. I’m also a little perplexed about how this gutted shell of a publication can still employ 500 journalists - but I’m glad they still have jobs.) I did grouse a little about the ever-increasing cost of my subscriptions to both WaPo and NYT, but I viewed the expense as necessary. At the same time, I was aware that the cost would be unaffordable to a lot of people. Maybe there are people who would consume more of that type of journalism if it were more affordable. (A bit of chicken-and-egg here - there are fewer readers because the cost keeps going up because there are fewer readers because the cost keeps going up.)
As for me, I cancelled my 41-year WaPo subscription after Bezos killed the Kamala Harris endorsement, and ditched my NYT subscription not long after that. (I kept The Atlantic.) I now subscribe to a whole collection of journalists on Substack, and I choose paid subscriptions for most of them, which is kind of hilarious when I think about how much less I paid for my news when I was only subscribing to two newspapers with ever-increasing subscription prices.
I share your emotions and also hope Detroit somehow remains an anomaly with two strong papers.
But whatever happens, Michigan's largest city isn't "one C-suite decision away from becoming a news desert." It has three TV network affiliates, an NPR station, an alternative weekly, a nonprofit newsroom (Outlier Media) and the Crain's business weekly you strengthened.
Loss of The News and/or Free Press would be a huge change in the local (and state) news climate, but not desertification.
Fair point — not to mention my beloved Crain’s. I thought about those great news outlets and paused on that paragraph before deciding that in this moment, with these headwinds, each of those newsrooms is one decision away from gutting. Fair?
So the possible Detroit news desert hinges on a series of harmful decsions, a perfect storm of hollowing? Seems a stretch.
And as chance has it, Columbia Journalism Review today salutes the nonprofit mentioned in my first reply. Excerpt:
"Outlier Media now stands as an example of an innovative local media landscape defying the darkest prophecies of journalism’s future. Outlier has pioneered a new journalistic approach—highly interactive, collaborative, responsive, practical, community-focused—to old goals: holding the powerful to account. Its text message system exists alongside original investigative reporting."
Ron I don’t necessarily agree that the primary cause here is the public “devaluing truth.”
Journalism has never been bias free, which is why the truth can sometimes be elusive.
The Wall Street Journal has long been viewed as conservative. The New York Times and The Washington Post have been seen for decades as more liberal. Historically, the Chicago Tribune leaned right while the Chicago Sun-Times leaned left. Bias didn’t suddenly appear in the internet era. It has always been there.
What did change is choice.
For what it’s worth, until fairly recently I subscribed simultaneously to all five Tribune Sun Times Post Times and WSJ for the better part of 50 years. I wasn’t chasing confirmation. I was trying to triangulate reality. That was harder then, but it was possible because there were fewer inputs.
Today people can curate their information environment instantly. That doesn’t mean the public suddenly stopped valuing truth. It means they finally had alternatives.
Which raises the harder question. Chicken or egg?
Did audiences demand partisan framing, or were they steadily fed it until trust eroded? Broadcast news alone can present two completely different realities. Take the border for example. Depending on what you watched, it was either a turnstile or tightly controlled.
So I’m not convinced this collapse rests mainly on readers abandoning journalism. It also reflects media institutions increasingly abandoning neutrality, mistaking advocacy for accountability, and confusing engagement with credibility.
And that’s where ownership enters the picture. Jeff Bezos bought it. He didn’t inherit a healthy institution. He acquired one that was already in decline. He tried to turn it around and made mistakes, but clearly the status quo was untenable.
People have always had biases. What they lacked before was choice. That distinction matters. In any event, I loved reading them.
I do still get the NYT and I was an MSNBC junkie til I ditched cable in November. Can’t say it ever challenged my assumptions. It was my perfect echo chamber. Watch Fox? That’s a tall order. I’ll have a look at the WSJ. Thanks!
I really appreciate this. I started my first newspaper job in 1986, at a small daily, making $400 a week. It was family owned with a matriarch publisher with ink in her veins. By the time I left 13 years later, the paper was in the hands of a big media company (sold, and resold, and eventually Warren Buffett gave up trying to make it profitable), and every year the staff numbers shrank. I hate to say that this was inevitable but I think it was. I can't remember a time when readers...consumers, subscribers ... didn't bitterly complain about paying for news, even when it was 25 cents a copy. I despise the Bezos ownership era, but one day that will pass. I don't feel optimistic about the future of newspapers, but I wonder whether NY Times has cracked a code. Our country needs journalists so very badly, now more than ever.
Amen.
I had no idea WaPo still employed 800 journalists. The thought of all those layoffs is upsetting, to say the least. I’m also a little perplexed about how this gutted shell of a publication can still employ 500 journalists - but I’m glad they still have jobs.) I did grouse a little about the ever-increasing cost of my subscriptions to both WaPo and NYT, but I viewed the expense as necessary. At the same time, I was aware that the cost would be unaffordable to a lot of people. Maybe there are people who would consume more of that type of journalism if it were more affordable. (A bit of chicken-and-egg here - there are fewer readers because the cost keeps going up because there are fewer readers because the cost keeps going up.)
As for me, I cancelled my 41-year WaPo subscription after Bezos killed the Kamala Harris endorsement, and ditched my NYT subscription not long after that. (I kept The Atlantic.) I now subscribe to a whole collection of journalists on Substack, and I choose paid subscriptions for most of them, which is kind of hilarious when I think about how much less I paid for my news when I was only subscribing to two newspapers with ever-increasing subscription prices.
Thats the problem with the Substack model!
I share your emotions and also hope Detroit somehow remains an anomaly with two strong papers.
But whatever happens, Michigan's largest city isn't "one C-suite decision away from becoming a news desert." It has three TV network affiliates, an NPR station, an alternative weekly, a nonprofit newsroom (Outlier Media) and the Crain's business weekly you strengthened.
Loss of The News and/or Free Press would be a huge change in the local (and state) news climate, but not desertification.
Fair point — not to mention my beloved Crain’s. I thought about those great news outlets and paused on that paragraph before deciding that in this moment, with these headwinds, each of those newsrooms is one decision away from gutting. Fair?
So the possible Detroit news desert hinges on a series of harmful decsions, a perfect storm of hollowing? Seems a stretch.
And as chance has it, Columbia Journalism Review today salutes the nonprofit mentioned in my first reply. Excerpt:
"Outlier Media now stands as an example of an innovative local media landscape defying the darkest prophecies of journalism’s future. Outlier has pioneered a new journalistic approach—highly interactive, collaborative, responsive, practical, community-focused—to old goals: holding the powerful to account. Its text message system exists alongside original investigative reporting."
https://www.cjr.org/kicker/outlier-media-reimagines-local-news-sarah-alvarez-candice-fortman.php
Ron I don’t necessarily agree that the primary cause here is the public “devaluing truth.”
Journalism has never been bias free, which is why the truth can sometimes be elusive.
The Wall Street Journal has long been viewed as conservative. The New York Times and The Washington Post have been seen for decades as more liberal. Historically, the Chicago Tribune leaned right while the Chicago Sun-Times leaned left. Bias didn’t suddenly appear in the internet era. It has always been there.
What did change is choice.
For what it’s worth, until fairly recently I subscribed simultaneously to all five Tribune Sun Times Post Times and WSJ for the better part of 50 years. I wasn’t chasing confirmation. I was trying to triangulate reality. That was harder then, but it was possible because there were fewer inputs.
Today people can curate their information environment instantly. That doesn’t mean the public suddenly stopped valuing truth. It means they finally had alternatives.
Which raises the harder question. Chicken or egg?
Did audiences demand partisan framing, or were they steadily fed it until trust eroded? Broadcast news alone can present two completely different realities. Take the border for example. Depending on what you watched, it was either a turnstile or tightly controlled.
So I’m not convinced this collapse rests mainly on readers abandoning journalism. It also reflects media institutions increasingly abandoning neutrality, mistaking advocacy for accountability, and confusing engagement with credibility.
And that’s where ownership enters the picture. Jeff Bezos bought it. He didn’t inherit a healthy institution. He acquired one that was already in decline. He tried to turn it around and made mistakes, but clearly the status quo was untenable.
People have always had biases. What they lacked before was choice. That distinction matters. In any event, I loved reading them.
I applaud you. You are not the norm. here is my first post-intro Substack post: https://convulsions.substack.com/p/we-the-lemmings
NYT, WSJ and a local newspaper for starters. Watch Fox and MSNBC for an hour a week
I do still get the NYT and I was an MSNBC junkie til I ditched cable in November. Can’t say it ever challenged my assumptions. It was my perfect echo chamber. Watch Fox? That’s a tall order. I’ll have a look at the WSJ. Thanks!