9 thoughts on “Art Buchwald would be spinning in his grave”
I’ll have to wait until we get out paper copy to read the story, but someone having so much money that he can afford to buy a major newspaper and run it into the ground is just one more manifestation of our growing economic inequality and the associated threat to democracy.
The bit about a rich person having so much money that he can afford to buy a major newspaper and run it into the ground . . . That’s not new.
What’s new is that there are so few major news organizations that do real reporting, that the elimination of one of these is consequential. In the old days, if a rich guy bought a major newspaper and ran it into the ground, some local businesspeople would start an another newspaper to compete with it. That’s not happening anymore.
I fear a similar thing could happen if political commissars are put in charge of our major universities.
I’d argue that whether it is new depends on your time scale. In 1970, the average disposable income of the top 0.01% was a bit over $3 million, now it is over $25 million (both in March 2923 dollars), according to Realtime Inequality.
A chatbot just calculated Bezos’ net worth to be some 45-90 times William Randolph Hearst’s in today’s dollars. Still, arguably, Hearst had far more influence on the media landscape than Bezos. Further, I’d say that there are more people who have alternative media source to the Washington Post today than there were alternative sources to Hearst Communications. That said, most of those alternative sources today are crap, with hardly any real investigative journalism.
The irony that, while reading the article, I had to scroll past incredibly intrusive Amazon Prime ads seems like something out of a 70’s sf novel.
Last year I read Marty Baron’s book about his experience running the Washington Post. Shortly after joining the paper from the Boston Globe, Bezos acquired the paper. Baron notes that Bezos was engaged early on and the paper did not change much during that time. The big change came with Baron’s retirement and ultimately the hiring of Will Lewis from London and Matt Murray from the Wall Street Journal. The paper was just not quick enough to adapt to the changing media landscape compared to their principal competitor the NY Times. Whether they can remain relevant is open to question. With the resignations and buyouts now complete, it remains to be seen if Lewis and Murray can rescue this slowly sinking ship. Readership is way down but I’m still happy that they have the biggest and best selection of comics of any paper in the country!!
I was disappointed in the presidential endorsement decision but Marcus and others leaving the paper in a huff was to me akin to the same choice Bari Weiss made at the NY Times several years ago. Most people don’t care much about endorsements and just want good writers and opinions to be published. I don’t think Bezos cares much about the Post anymore as he’s too busy with his new wife and super yacht. I’ve subscribed to the WaPo since moving to DC in 1978 and recently dropped the print sub because it costs too much.
If Bezos hadn’t purchased the Post and kept it running, notwithstanding its growing financial losses (reportedly, it lost $77 million in 2023) and subscriber losses (reportedly, it has lost 50% of its subscribers since 2020), would there even be a Washington Post? Probably not. So, all of this complaining about plutocrats buying newspapers and “destroying them” seems pretty ridiculous.
The Post is still a very liberal newspaper, both in terms of its news coverage and in terms of its range of opinions in the op-ed section. So Bezos wants to change the direction of its opinions in a less statist direction. How horrible! People like Ruth Marcus (and Stephen Colbert, and NPR, etc etc) think that the Constitution requires that owners, and/or taxpayers, owe them a platform.
I have a feeling that, had Bezos not purchased the Post, it would still exist. Other major newspapers around the country still exist. It might be in worse shape than it is now, or maybe better shape, I don’t know.
As I wrote in my above post, I think Art Buchwald would be unhappy about recent events at the Post. I wouldn’t call Buchwald “statist,” unless you define “statist” as anyone who wants a higher marginal tax on personal income.
In any case, as noted in an above comment, my bigger concern is not with what is happening with one newspaper but rather that there are so few major independent news sources. I’m with that notorious statist Thomas Jefferson on that one.
Her main complaint seems to be that the Wash. Post is too pro-Trump. Her rant mentions Trump about 50 times. But the Wash. Post editorial page hardly ever publishes anything pro-Trump. It has a couple of conservative columnists, but they are Trump-haters writing anti-Trump opinions.
I’ll have to wait until we get out paper copy to read the story, but someone having so much money that he can afford to buy a major newspaper and run it into the ground is just one more manifestation of our growing economic inequality and the associated threat to democracy.
John:
The bit about a rich person having so much money that he can afford to buy a major newspaper and run it into the ground . . . That’s not new.
What’s new is that there are so few major news organizations that do real reporting, that the elimination of one of these is consequential. In the old days, if a rich guy bought a major newspaper and ran it into the ground, some local businesspeople would start an another newspaper to compete with it. That’s not happening anymore.
I fear a similar thing could happen if political commissars are put in charge of our major universities.
I’d argue that whether it is new depends on your time scale. In 1970, the average disposable income of the top 0.01% was a bit over $3 million, now it is over $25 million (both in March 2923 dollars), according to Realtime Inequality.
These are interesting comparisons.
A chatbot just calculated Bezos’ net worth to be some 45-90 times William Randolph Hearst’s in today’s dollars. Still, arguably, Hearst had far more influence on the media landscape than Bezos. Further, I’d say that there are more people who have alternative media source to the Washington Post today than there were alternative sources to Hearst Communications. That said, most of those alternative sources today are crap, with hardly any real investigative journalism.
The irony that, while reading the article, I had to scroll past incredibly intrusive Amazon Prime ads seems like something out of a 70’s sf novel.
Last year I read Marty Baron’s book about his experience running the Washington Post. Shortly after joining the paper from the Boston Globe, Bezos acquired the paper. Baron notes that Bezos was engaged early on and the paper did not change much during that time. The big change came with Baron’s retirement and ultimately the hiring of Will Lewis from London and Matt Murray from the Wall Street Journal. The paper was just not quick enough to adapt to the changing media landscape compared to their principal competitor the NY Times. Whether they can remain relevant is open to question. With the resignations and buyouts now complete, it remains to be seen if Lewis and Murray can rescue this slowly sinking ship. Readership is way down but I’m still happy that they have the biggest and best selection of comics of any paper in the country!!
I was disappointed in the presidential endorsement decision but Marcus and others leaving the paper in a huff was to me akin to the same choice Bari Weiss made at the NY Times several years ago. Most people don’t care much about endorsements and just want good writers and opinions to be published. I don’t think Bezos cares much about the Post anymore as he’s too busy with his new wife and super yacht. I’ve subscribed to the WaPo since moving to DC in 1978 and recently dropped the print sub because it costs too much.
If Bezos hadn’t purchased the Post and kept it running, notwithstanding its growing financial losses (reportedly, it lost $77 million in 2023) and subscriber losses (reportedly, it has lost 50% of its subscribers since 2020), would there even be a Washington Post? Probably not. So, all of this complaining about plutocrats buying newspapers and “destroying them” seems pretty ridiculous.
The Post is still a very liberal newspaper, both in terms of its news coverage and in terms of its range of opinions in the op-ed section. So Bezos wants to change the direction of its opinions in a less statist direction. How horrible! People like Ruth Marcus (and Stephen Colbert, and NPR, etc etc) think that the Constitution requires that owners, and/or taxpayers, owe them a platform.
Well, they don’t. Get over it.
Jj,
I have a feeling that, had Bezos not purchased the Post, it would still exist. Other major newspapers around the country still exist. It might be in worse shape than it is now, or maybe better shape, I don’t know.
As I wrote in my above post, I think Art Buchwald would be unhappy about recent events at the Post. I wouldn’t call Buchwald “statist,” unless you define “statist” as anyone who wants a higher marginal tax on personal income.
In any case, as noted in an above comment, my bigger concern is not with what is happening with one newspaper but rather that there are so few major independent news sources. I’m with that notorious statist Thomas Jefferson on that one.
Her main complaint seems to be that the Wash. Post is too pro-Trump. Her rant mentions Trump about 50 times. But the Wash. Post editorial page hardly ever publishes anything pro-Trump. It has a couple of conservative columnists, but they are Trump-haters writing anti-Trump opinions.