Canceling subscriptions to the Washington Post won't influence the newsroom

Following the recent criticism of Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos for killing an endorsement editorial of Kamala Harris, a Facebook friend recently asked me if I feel that the reporting quality has declined,

I responded with the following two (edited) messages:

Jon:

I don't think Bezos has had much impact on the reporting quality of the Washington Post. I do not believe the reporting work of the Washington Post newsroom deserves broad criticism or skepticism based on his ownership. Canceling subscriptions to the Washington Post won't influence the newsroom.

The ownership of a newspaper or broadcast station likely has some impact on how it covers particular topics or events. However, newsrooms are generally independent of their owners, the advertising departments, and the editorial pages.

Just as individual reporters try to keep a skeptical distance from their usual sources of information, they try to keep a distance from their media ownership. Of course, some reporters and their editors are less competent than most reporters and editors at respecting that distance. I base my statement here on my training and experience as a journalist and my professional experience working with journalists.

My cancellation of my WA Post subscription months ago had nothing to do with Bezos. As I noted in an earlier post, I subscribed to The Guardian, based in the UK, because I wanted a more international approach to the news—less U.S.-oriented. I dropped my WA Post subscription because I already subscribed to the NY Times and other U.S. news media.

Also, most daily newspapers don't depend on paid subscriptions for most of their revenue. Advertising pays their bills and earns their profit. But subscriptions matter to advertisers. More subscribers means more potential ad viewers. And vice versa.

Jon:

I'd like to add that the traditional news industry is changing for the worse in providing news coverage. For the past 40-50 years, corporate chains have been buying local newspapers and broadcast stations.

And the growth of the internet has not helped; it's weakened the strength and resources of traditional news media. Fewer people are subscribing because they often can get news free on their web browsers. Past and potential advertisers know that -- and fewer of them are advertising, thus reducing the revenue and resources of the news media.

As the years have gone by, fewer and fewer of these corporate owners have a significant traditional, institutional interest in providing high-quality journalism. Their purchases have been for financial reasons—not to benefit news coverage but to make a profit. Hedge fund managers are less concerned about supporting the social, civic, and democratic needs of the communities and states the media serve.

Thus, they will cut reporting staff and resources, reduce coverage of government and community issues, and focus more on controversy and "car accidents" rather than problem-solving (if the reporting doesn't hurt their bottom lines). This hurts weekly/community newspapers, but larger daily papers are also affected. Because of this trend, there are now fewer weekly and daily newspapers.

I most recently noticed this trend when Donna and I stayed a week on south Whidbey Island in August. The south Whidbey Record, where I worked as editor in the early '70s, now has fewer pages, fewer advertisements, and probably fewer subscribers -- despite a growing population. And there's now no local newspaper office.

This industry trend is horrifying to me ... and should be horrifying to everyone who cares about the value of the "free press," free speech, and democracy itself.

Independent, alternative, nonprofit, internet-based (ironically) news media can replace some of the lost news coverage. And I'm hopeful and supportive of that trend. But, I remain concerned that they may not have the resources needed to replace all that is lost by the closure and weakening of traditional news media.