In a move that shocked nearly no one outside its own echo chamber, the Washington Post recently slashed around 100 jobs, closing entire sections in a dramatic scale-back. But should we really be surprised? For years now, this media giant has been struggling to find its footing in an industry where, like it or not, you must show profitability to stay afloat. Despite the common progressive plea that billionaires like Jeff Bezos should endlessly fund unprofitable ventures, the harsh reality is simple: business is business. You can’t run a newspaper solely on ideological indulgence, hoping someone will foot the bill for stories that few read.
Amidst the meltdowns and hysteria that followed these layoffs, some claim the motives were ideological rather than financial. Yet the financial losses paint a clear picture, one that no amount of ideological fervor can erase. When you hemorrhage $100 million a year, it’s obvious that something has to change. Even if the Washington Post’s race coverage reportedly drove subscriptions, it seems that overall, the demand wasn’t enough to keep these positions justified. The media’s self-important bubble bursts when confronted with the grim facts of business survival.
Some laid-off employees lament that their work was vital. However, if the so-called vital work really held intrinsic public value, wouldn’t readers be flocking to their articles? Instead, it appears many of these pieces were nothing more than noise, echoes in a vast and overcrowded media landscape where anyone with a smartphone can report “news.” It’s not enough for a publication to assert its work is important; the audience, the consumers of that work, must agree. In today’s digital world, there’s no shortage of choices, and the public is clearly choosing otherwise.
The outcry over these cuts reveals a staggering disconnect from reality. In an age where traditional media is dwarfed by independent creators and information is available free from countless sources, expecting the Post, or any major outlet, to continue without a significant rethink borders on foolishness. It’s as if they believe existing legacy names should be supported out of sheer nostalgia while ignoring the prevailing market dynamics that even affect billionaires’ wallets.
At the end of the day, this saga serves as a reminder of capitalism’s basic tenet — you can’t spend more than you earn indefinitely. Like it or not, every business must constantly adapt to survive, media companies included. Instead of wailing over the demise of outlets that refuse to evolve, perhaps it’s time those in the industry face facts: in order to stay relevant and solvent, the work has to resonate, innovate, and, yes, make money. It’s not a travesty; it’s just economics.
