Punishing Bezos
Hitting back at centibillionaires is hard.
In the wake of the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post announcing it would not endorse a candidate in this year’s presidential election, many commenters here announced that they were canceling their subscription to the paper. The problem with that is that Bezos is worth $204 billion (and that’s after losing half his wealth in a messy divorce a few years back) and, if said paper’s value were to decline to zero, he would still be worth a little over $200 billion but the country would be down one great newspaper and hundreds, if not thousands, of people would be without a job.
Atlantic staff writer Ellen Cushing has a better idea: “Don’t Cancel The Washington Post. Cancel Amazon Prime.”
Amazon is the biggest store in the world, the second-largest private employer in the United States, and the reason Bezos was rich enough to buy the Post in the first place. And Amazon, as I have previously reported, is powered by Prime, which in and of itself generates tremendous revenue for the company, in addition to facilitating ever more shopping. Last year, the company’s revenue from its membership offerings alone came to $40.2 billion. This is roughly twice as much as the 2022 revenue of every publicly traded newspaper company in the country combined, and infinitely more than that of the Post, which in May reported that it had lost $77 million in the past year, largely as a result of declining paid readership. The United States has roughly 127 million households. Recent estimates show that U.S. consumers hold 180 million Prime subscriptions and fewer than 21 million newspaper subscriptions.
Amazon Prime subscriptions pay for Amazon to grow—to gobble up market share, put small stores out of business, and make Bezos more powerful. Newspaper subscriptions, by the same token, pay for newspapers to grow. They pay for reporting and editing and fact-checking and the skilled labor of a vanishing class of people—people dedicated to the careful work of gathering the news, verifying the accuracy of information, and endeavoring to ensure a well-informed citizenry. The people who do that work are not the ones responsible for killing the Post’s endorsement. But they are the ones who are likely to be laid off, furloughed, bought out, or underpaid if company revenue dwindles as a result of subscription cancellations.
Subscriptions enable fearlessness and independence; they allowed the Post to publish the Pentagon Papers and unravel the Watergate scandal, which led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation in 1974. (This was also, of course, when advertising revenue still sustained the news business.) Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, who anchored the Watergate coverage, released a statement yesterday calling the decision not to endorse “surprising and disappointing,” especially given the paper’s “own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy.”
Journalism is expensive. And the news industry is in crisis in part because not enough people are willing to pay for it. Woodward and Bernstein reported on Watergate for two years before Nixon resigned; while they did, subscribers helped pay their salaries, as well as the salaries of the editors and production staff who worked to bring their stories to the public. In 2022, Post reporters won the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service, one of the industry’s highest honors, for stories about the chaos that befell their city on January 6, 2021, after a group of people stormed the Capitol and attempted to overthrow a legitimately elected president. Subscribers helped pay for that work too. But their numbers keep dwindling. This is why, in recent years, some news organizations have come to rely on the largesse of individual billionaires. The people whom American journalism institutions were built to serve—average readers—are no longer paying the check.
Readers who’ve written to cancel their Post subscriptions have cited the endorsement decision, but they have also cited the paper’s general decline: “There just isn’t much to read in The Post anymore, and it is no longer a local paper in any meaningful sense,” one wrote. But if those readers want a robust local newspaper, an institution to keep holding the powerful to account, Post subscriptions aren’t the problem. They’re the solution. The best thing those readers can do is cancel their $139 annual Prime subscriptions, if they have them, and invest that money in the journalism they say they want and need.
Writing on Facebook, WaPo education reporter Laura Meckler adds:
I have struggled all day with whether and what to say here about the goings-on at the Washington Post, but I have seen too many posts from friends declaring they are canceling their subscriptions because they are angry at the Post’s decision not to make an endorsement in the presidential race. I understand the anger. I really do. However, if that’s you, I would ask you consider these points: Under Bezos’s ownership, the Post has consistently done absolutely essential reporting holding the powerful — including Donald Trump — to account. It’s always possible that will change, but it certainly hasn’t yet. If you play out the thought experiment, the result of everyone canceling their subscriptions would be what exactly? The newspaper goes under? And that will serve up a lesson to Bezos, who will go back to being a billionaire who doesn’t own a newspaper? No, the result will be less vigorous coverage of our country at a time when media coast to coast is withering away. Even if the paper doesn’t go under, if revenue falls, then cuts will follow, people will lose their jobs and we will produce less of the essential journalism that made you want to subscribe in the first place. Can this country afford to lose one of only a handful of robust news organizations doing the important work of accountability reporting in this country?
One decision — even a bad decision — does not destroy everything the Post stands for. Look at our website right now and you will find an independently reported story about the endorsement, with quotes highly critical of Bezos; opinion writers opining on this with unvarnished clarity; a story about how Elon Musk, who now rails against illegal immigration, himself worked illegally in this country when he was younger. And much much more.
If you want to express your anger, I’d recommend sending a letter to our publisher[.]
Now, to be clear, I’m not planning to cancel either my Post or my Prime subscription because, as I indicated yesterday, I’m not particularly outraged by the decision not to endorse. Indeed, the more I think about it, I think the decision not to endorse (first made by the LA Times) will actually help Harris more than an endorsement. As I noted earlier this morning in the comment to yesterday’s post:
I am quite comfortable that, despite the LAT withholding its endorsement, Harris will win all of California’s Electors by a margin of several million votes. Similarly, I’m confident that, despite WaPo withholding its endorsement, Harris will win the District of Columbia, Virginia, and Maryland by comfortable margins. It. Just. Doesn’t. Matter.
For that matter, if the opinions of the two papers’ editorial boards would have swayed any votes at all, it’s actually MORE likely now. Endorsements by two Democrat-leaning Editorial Boards would have been greeted with yawns. Their outrage over their endorsements being withheld has been widely-circulated news for several days.
WaPo remains, with the NYT, one of the two essential newspapers for understanding American politics and foreign relations. So long as that remains the case and the price remains reasonable, I shall continue to subscribe.
It’s more conceivable that I’ll eventually part ways with Amazon Prime, not because of Bezos’ influence on WaPo but because he’s allowed Amazon itself to become increasingly enshittified.
I take the general point about cancellations. Although I think the goal is to send a signal, not to hope the it kills the paper. It is the one of a very few set of tools people have to communicate their displeasure.
This does hit on a bigger issue: whether one is Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk, if individual humans have so much wealth that there are largely untouchable, that creates a massive power imbalance in society and we seem to be at a moment time when a significant number of them have truly remarkable power in a way that allows them to almost outside of society. Look at how much Musk can lose on Twitter just because he can.
@Steven L. Taylor: With enough wealth, especially if it’s diversified, people do become damn near untouchable. They can simply leave the country and live anywhere they want–including on a personal yacht out of reach of national laws. I don’t know what to do about that.
And, sure, the point is to send a signal. But, to your point: does Bezos really give a damn about what the peasants think?
Porque no los dos?
I don’t have subscriptions to either Prime or the Post. I’ve one for Audible. I didn’t cancel it, because I’ve unused credits. That would cost me more than Lex. But I paused it. That means I pay nothing to Bezos for the next few months. I may use up the outstanding credits and then cancel.
If Kamala wins, or if we keep the Senate, or if we take the House, we can punish Bezos by blocking any and all government contracts with Blue Origin.
One of the big reasons the Russian military has become a laughingstock, is because of government corruption. This is government corruption.
@Michael Reynolds:
Strike back at your political enemies or people who have a differing opinion. Doesn’t that sound familiar?
Is there any problem where Dr. Joyner’s solution isn’t to just ignore it and hope it goes away on its own?
@Bill Jempty: It is weird AF that this non-endorsement nonsense came up right after Trump met with Blue Origin executives.
“Punish”–no. But, carefully and thoughtfully examine the costs and benefits and any provisions made to a private company on behalf of the US government to see if the advantages of extending tax dollars to a for-profit company are merited? Sure.
@Stormy Dragon: James remains, at heart, a conservative Republican. The conservative response to everything is, “Well, that’s just the way things are, nothing can be done.”
@Bill Jempty:
He’s not ‘a political enemy,’ he’s an oligarch bribing a candidate for president. IOW, as I said, corrupt.
It’s not just Lex and Xlon.
What’s needed is a serious tax on wealth, say 50% of all wealth, paper or otherwise, of all US citizens or anyone with as much as one share in any US based company, in excess of one billion dollars, regardless of what jurisdiction it may be under.
With harsh and effective enforcement. Say 5 years in prison for failure to pay.
@James Joyner:
Mr. Prosser linked yesterday to a J. V. Last column at The Bulwark. If you haven’t read it, please do, including the link to an earlier Slate article detailing how Trump has threatened Bezos, that a Trump administration can touch Bezos, and last time around DID punish Bezos.
@Stormy Dragon: @gVOR10:
First, as noted multiple times now, I just don’t see an issue with newspapers failing to endorse candidates. Second, I don’t think there’s a solution to billionaire owners that’s not far worse than whatever it is we’re trying to cure.
@gVOR10: I don’t know that I’ve been “conservative” in the context of American politics for quite some time but I do still hold that there are many problems that don’t call for Federal government solutions. Not everything we don’t like is in the remit of the state.
Ended my LA Times subscription, wasn’t essential. Prime axed as well; it’s been overpriced for a while. Not canceling my WaPo Sx (yet), but I applaud those who do.
We don’t owe them anything. The current exasperation is not just a discrete event, but a final straw in a long overdue divorce.
Liberals are tired of having our concerns met with sneering dismissiveness by the corporate press and its handmaidens, compared to them coddling the “economic anxiety” of racists and homophobes. Tired of being told we’re not “real Americans” and of being ignored while reporters go on MAGA safaris at diners. Tired of them carrying water for right wing narratives about emails and inflation. Tired of them stacking panels of “undecided voters” with Republican operatives. Tired of the refusal to reckon with the consequences of their anti-Hillary national bitch hunt. Tired of their abuse of Joe Biden.
Especially tired of them bothsidesing fascism and democracy, and holding Democratic politicians (like Harris) to a higher standard than Trump Republicans.
Good on the patriots finally taking action rather than just whining and tantruming, like we typically do. I saw someone say on Threads yesterday, if indeed nothing can hurt these sinister oligarchs who use certain publications as their toys, kudos to those trying to smash them.
I think these institutions will easily survive after the current brouhaha passes and short memory syndrome rises.
But should the market ever dictate that WaPo or LA Times employees must change employment, welcome to real America. There are very good independent pundits and reporters. There are other print and digital publications not controlled by fascist-enabling billionaires.
@Michael Reynolds:
You’re advocating doing harm to someone for showing non-support. It is attacking someone for not liking their politics. Or rather not taking the political stance you want. At the least it is being petty.
Yawn. Like who a newspaper endorses or doesn’t endorse in this day and age makes any difference at the polls.
Back about 20+ years ago, when Amazon was first becoming a big thing, I saw a televised interview with Bezos. He giggled throughout the whole conversation, and I recall thinking: “This guy is weird.”
Just a memory, but I’ve never changed my opinion.
It’ll be interesting to follow this over the medium-long term. I’m reminded of the outrage surrounding spotify and Joe Rogan. The immediate and short-term impact on spotify’s bottom line was indeed significant. However, the longer-term rebound and growth are noteworthy. Check out the 5Y data here.
Of course, these are not exactly apples to apples. And still…
The decision is a dumb one. The Post did endorse candidates. They just chose not to endorse a presidential candidate, which just makes it a PR strategy and not policy. If you change the scene for what happened, the arbitrary appeal to some type of BS-brand is what people who defend Bezos hate about the worst aspects of DEI. But since it’s a rich guy, there’s nothing wrong here at all.
@James Joyner:
And as noted many times now, the issue here is not just merely about non-endorsement — despite the rather silly attempts to minimize and oversimplify.
It’s about oligarchs chilling press freedom by spiking already-planned endorsements and coverage, about their doing so just days before an election involving a candidate whose former colleagues warn is fascist, and about them not telling the truth as to the reasons why.
Pretty obvious.
That totally misses the point. I’ve never cared much about endorsements by newspapers. If WaPo decided it wanted to end its practice of making endorsements, it could have announced that well outside the time frame of election season (say, Jan. 2022). Instead they suddenly sprang it on their readers less than two weeks before the presidential election. And given that they’ve endorsed the Dem nominee for president in every election going back decades, their withholding the endorsement now would give the impression they find something uniquely disqualifying about Harris—which is complete bullshit, and the editors at the paper know it. She’s a normal, middle-of-the-road Dem whose politics are well in line with past candidates they’ve endorsed. To add insult to injury, given that we now know this was a unilateral decision by Bezos, it means the paper lied in its editorial announcing the decision.
The point is not that the non-endorsement will have any impact on the election. I doubt it will, one way or the other. But I find the event extremely ominous, because it gives us a very direct taste how the nation’s oligarchs will behave if Trump gets back into power.
@Kylopod:
Yes, and at this point it’s just deliberate obtuseness, bordering on dishonesty. Odd.
@Kylopod:
But I find the event extremely ominous, because it gives us a very direct taste how the nation’s oligarchs will behave if Trump gets back into power.
Bezos is signaling, in a cowardly way, what his asking price is for being bought.
To James, this is how life should be and is as ordinary as IG Farben doing the necessary thing and using concentration camp labor. For others, not so much.
@Kylopod:
Putin’s oligarchs.
Ms. Cushing, who wrote the article James Joyner heavily mentions above, is an author for The Atlantic.
She mentions boycotting/cancelling Amazon Prime. Why not other Amazon subscription services? I’ll name one- Kindle Select.
Could be that, not Ms. Cushing, but other Atlantic writers or colleagues have published books that are enrolled in Kindle Select. A boycott/mass cancellations would be harmful to these people
Let me just say my opinion- No boycott or cancellation drive is going to do Jeff Bezos the slightest harm. He is too rich.
Focusing on just Amazon Prime and not mentioning Kindle Select is interesting. Full disclosure- My books are all enrolled in Kindle Select.
@James Joyner:
Except you constantly push back on private solutions as well (such as this case where the primary response has been canceled subscriptions). Eventually one starts getting the impression your viewpoint is less concern about government overreach and more some sort of extreme fatalism that rejects the idea that society can be improved at all
@Modulo Myself:
One may not agree that the actions of Bezos and Soon-Siong represent fascist creep and oligarchal hazard. But to completely erase the context altogether is just a bit strange.
If my boyfriend were to cancel dinner with me, that’s a mild irration, but whatever. If he cancels dinner with me last monute, on my birthday, hangs with his ex instead, then is deceitful about it — to me, that’s problemmatic.
Say I complain to friend, and she responds, “Meh, dinner cancellations are not that big a deal.”
I’d say, “Normally, but it was my birthday, it was last minute, and he had was with his ex and was shady about it.”
Then, she responds, “As I said before, don’t see a problem with dinner cancellations.”
Now I’m wondering if my friend’s brain or ears are broken. She might not think my bf was wrong, but surely she gets the context placing this incident beyond any other mere cancellation.
A paper implementing a policy of not endorsing presidential candidates is whatever. But that’s different from a paper’s owner blocking its editors’ planned endorsement days before the election, just after warnings of a candidate’s fascism, then lying about it. One may not disagree on the danger level here, but surely smart, honest people get the difference…right?
Like ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ hello?
@DK: wish I could upvote twice. Well said.
@DK:
To quote a genius: it’s like Lenin said–you look for the person who will benefit, and uh, you know….
There’s a benefit to doing what Bezos did, and there’s for a benefit in encouraging people not to see the benefit and thinking it’s no big deal.
@Bill Jempty: maybe not Bezos, but a Harris administration should definitely investigate Musk, and depending on the results, consider terminating any contracts with him. Corruption is one thing, but we definitely shouldn’t be giving government contracts to traitors who conspire with our adversaries.
@Monala:
Traitors? You’re sounding like Trump.
@Bill Jempty: Musk has been in communication with Putin, and we should find out why. That’s why I’m suggesting an investigation. If those results find out he is betraying this country, then yes, we need to act on it. Or do you think it’s no big deal that he’s talking to Putin, and we shouldn’t do anything?
@Monala: Musk is a defense contractor – there are very strict rules in place for any defense contractor who is not insanely wealthy.
Wealthy people with SCI/poly clearances can, apparently, do whatever they wish.
I’m ahead of the curve compared to y’all (as usual); I’ve believed that WaPo and its owners are a bunch of partisan hacks since before Nixon. Y’all are just upset because the partisan lean has shifted.
On the topic in question though, I agree that the timing was improper. How to retaliate is outside of my control, though, as I neither subscribe to “national” newspapers nor send my servants–cyber or otherwise–out to do my shopping for me.* I do have Kindle Unlimited but see no evidence that I’m actually paying for the service. I can’t assess what effect my cancellation would have on Bezos either way.
*So far, I’ve cancelled 2 or 3 Amazon Prime “free trials” because I don’t see the benefit in prepaid shipping and only shop Amazon as a last resort and to use Amazon gift cards my S-I-L sends at Christmas. I bought my Kindle because I had $300 Amazon gift balance, in fact.
I don’t really have strong opinions on this. Generally, I’m against the idea of news organizations making endorsements.
The timing of this decision, however, and the lack of clarity about the motivation for the timing is – at best – really bad optics and PR.
It’s also a good example of how doing something wrong or unwise once can cancel out years of solid reporting. This is the paper, after all, that changed its motto to “Democracy dies in darkness” in response to Trump, which has reported extensively on Trump’s criminal and less savory activities, including Pulitzer’s for January 6th, autocracy and other related topics. If you spend any time in MAGA world, you’d know that the WAPO is not at all considered a fair outlet, and this non-endorsement does nothing to change that. So, everyone hates the WAPO now?
My general view is that big organizations are more than one mistake. The WAPO has already been losing money for a couple of years now. Their subscriber numbers started to decline after Trump left office – reportedly because people didn’t need their daily dose of Trump drama anymore.
Canceling subscriptions is an entirely valid way to “send a message,” but one should be cognizant of the larger and second-order effects. Looking at the big picture, angry liberals canceling subscriptions over this makes the organization much more dependent on Bezos’ billions. It would be unfortunate if the result were the WAPO losing more money, laying off more people, and worse reporting.
I don’t think canceling Amazon subscriptions will do much, either. Amazon is a public company; Bezos “only” owns about 12% of it. The number of people willing to give up the benefits of a Prime membership for this will be a very small set of highly ideological individuals—less than a rounding error. And where do they then go for online shopping? WalMart, which definitely has no billionaires, TEMU/Alibaba—which are de facto dependent on those nice people in the Chinese government?
FWIW, my family is keeping our WAPO subscription (and NYT too) – along with several others. Their record of reporting is well worth it IMO. Now, if this action/mistake is a harbinger of the future direction of the WAPO, then we’ll reevaluate at that time.
@Bill Jempty: I’ve never even heard of “Kindle Select” and I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one (I intend to google it after this post). So I’m going to go out on a limb here and say there’s probably a metric fckton more people subscribed to prime than “Kindle Select”. So Prime is naturally a vastly better target if you want to make a point. Hard for people to cancel a service they don’t even use and all that…
WaPo remains, with the NYT, one of the two essential newspapers for understanding American politics and foreign relations. So long as that remains the case and the price remains reasonable, I shall continue to subscribe.
I can’t think of a greater indictment of the soci0-economic class to which James Joyner belongs than him admitting price would get him to stop subscribing to WaPo and the NYT, but them blatantly lying to him for years about important issues won’t.