The Washington Post has seen a mass exodus of subscribers, with over 200,000 cancellations reported after the paper’s decision not to endorse any candidate in the upcoming presidential election, including Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris.
This figure represents roughly 8% of the outlet’s 250,000 paid circulation, as reported by NPR, signaling potential dissatisfaction among readers.
The decision, which was publicly defended by Washington Post owner and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, has stirred controversy both inside and outside the newsroom.
In a statement, Bezos argued the importance of maintaining independence within journalism and noted the mounting distrust Americans have for mainstream media.
“The profession is now the least trusted of all,” he wrote, explaining that a move toward neutrality could help restore faith in The Post’s journalistic integrity.
Former Post executive editor Marcus Brauchli expressed concern about the cancellations, calling the subscriber losses “colossal.” Brauchli added, “The problem is, people don’t know why the decision was made.
We basically know the decision was made, but we don’t know what led to it.” Meanwhile, The Post’s Chief Executive and Publisher Will Lewis backed the decision, reaffirming that the publication aims to be an “independent paper,” distancing itself from direct political endorsements.
The timing of the decision, however, has raised suspicions. With Election Day only weeks away, some see it as a strategically late call to avoid divisive political positions.
Former Executive Editor Marty Baron criticized the timing, stating, “If this decision had been made three years ago, two years ago, maybe even a year ago, that would’ve been fine.
But this was made within a couple of weeks of the election, and there was no substantive serious deliberation with the editorial board. It was clearly made for other reasons, not for reasons of high principle.”
Bezos, however, responded to these criticisms by admitting the timing was less than ideal but denied it was part of any hidden agenda.
“That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy,” he stated.
His comments emphasized a renewed focus on journalistic neutrality rather than an intentional pushback against endorsing Kamala Harris.
In a related move, Bezos also announced plans to hire more conservative columnists, aiming to diversify the ideological perspectives at the traditionally left-of-center newspaper.
This shift has prompted further speculation on whether The Washington Post is attempting to appeal to a broader range of readers, especially as polarized political stances have sometimes alienated portions of its readership.
Critics have not held back. In an op-ed, The Atlantic suggested that those upset by The Post’s non-endorsement should consider targeting Amazon as a way to protest the decision, recommending readers cancel their Prime memberships.
The piece insinuated that Bezos, wary of another Trump administration, may have frozen any formal endorsement to avoid alienating conservative consumers or to hedge his bets should Trump win the upcoming election.
As the backlash continues, the subscriber drop at The Washington Post underscores the risks media outlets face in taking—or abstaining from—political stances, especially in today’s polarized climate.
Whether Bezos’s neutrality move will help rebuild trust among a skeptical public or further alienate The Post’s progressive base remains to be seen, but the controversy marks a significant moment for one of the country’s most prominent newspapers as it navigates the challenge of balancing independence with the expectations of a politically charged readership.