More than 250,000 Washington Post readers cancel subscriptions in revolt over non-endorsement

By Liam Reilly, CNN

New York (CNN) — More than 250,000 Washington Post readers have canceled their subscriptions since the newspaper announced last week it would not make an endorsement in the presidential race, leading to a “huge spike” in cancelations, the Post reported late Tuesday.

The endorsement decision, first announced on Friday by Post publisher Will Lewis, resulted in the newspaper losing roughly 10% of its digital subscribers by Tuesday evening, the paper reported, citing documents and two people familiar with the figures. The number did not take into account any new subscribers the Post may have added since Friday or any subscribers who have since re-subscribed, the paper reported.

NPR first reported the figure. A spokesperson for the Post did not comment on the report.

In the wake of Lewis’ announcement that the Post would break with decades-long tradition and not endorse in the race — coming less than two weeks before Election Day — readers immediately began to revolt over the move, with high-profile figures and former staffers posting on social media that they had cancelled their subscriptions. The Post reported it began seeing a surge in cancelations within hours of the announcement.

Readers and former Post staffers, including former executive editor Marty Baron, have labeled the decision as “craven” and “cowardly,” seeing the move as an attempt by billionaire Post owner Jeff Bezos as an attempt to pre-emptively bend the knee to a possible second Trump administration. A person with knowledge of the matter told CNN that an endorsement of Harris had been drafted by the Post’s editorial board members before it was quashed by Bezos.

The Los Angeles Times, which had also drafted an endorsement of Harris’ White House bid before it was vetoed by the paper’s billionaire owner, announced last week that it would not publish its endorsement.

“I don’t think there’s a plausible explanation for the endorsement pullbacks other than a fear of retribution from a Trump administration,” Bill Grueskin, a professor at Columbia Journalism School, told CNN. “If either the Post or the Times had just published their endorsements, no matter how full-throated or milquetoast they were, this likely would’ve flown under the radar.”

At a campaign rally Wednesday in North Carolina, former President Donald Trump seized on the blocked endorsements, claiming it was proof the publications quietly supported him over Harris.

“The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times and all these papers. They’re not endorsing anybody,” Trump said. “You know what they’re really saying? Because they only endorse Democrats. They’re saying this Democrat’s no good. They’re no good. And they think I’m doing a great job.”

Earlier this week, as the Post hemorrhaged subscribers — and saw three members of its editorial board resign — Bezos sought to calm the response, publishing a rare op-ed in which he acknowledged the timing of his decision had led to speculation he was attempting to appease Trump.

“I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it,” Bezos wrote. “That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.”

Bezos also acknowledged the “appearance of conflict” with the decision, admitting that his ownership of the e-commerce giant Amazon and space exploration firm Blue Origin, which has billions in federal contracts, has been a “complexifier for the Post.”

His recent discussions with Trump have also raised interest. After the former president was shot in the ear this summer in an assassination attempt, Bezos called the former president “to say how impressed he was that the candidate had raised his fist after coming under fire,” the Post reported.

On Friday, hours after Lewis announced the decision not to endorse in the presidential race, Trump met with executives from Blue Origin in Texas, pouring fuel on the already raging backlash fire. In his op-ed, Bezos insisted he did not have advance knowledge of the meeting.

“I would also like to be clear that no quid pro quo of any kind is at work here. Neither campaign nor candidate was consulted or informed at any level or in any way about this decision. It was made entirely internally,” he wrote.

Instead, Bezos framed his decision to end presidential endorsements as one designed to regain the trust of readers.

“What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias,” he wrote. “A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.”

While Bezos denied his business interests played a role in the decision, publishing presidential endorsements can have an effect on a newspaper’s bottom line, Grueskin said.

A loss of 250,000 subscribers may “not even [be] pocket change for Jeff Bezos,” he said. But “that’s a huge chunk of revenue and readership gone for the Post — certainly for the time being, and maybe for many years.”

“This clearly has implications for the publications, especially the Post, whose business model was already on thin ice,” Grueskin added. “It’s the worst self-own by a media mogul I’ve seen since the days of Tronc.”

CNN’s Kate Sullivan contributed to this report.

The-CNN-Wire
™ & © 2024 Cable News Network, Inc., a Warner Bros. Discovery Company. All rights reserved.