Monday, February 9, 2026

Why 'The Washington Post' lay-offs matter

Today's edition of
The Washington Post

I learnt about what happened at The Washington Post through a notification on my mobile about Ishaan Tharoor's post on X.

(Ishaan Tharoor is an American journalist who worked for The Time and later for The Washington Post. He is also the son of Shashi Tharoor, a former Indian diplomat who served as the Under-Secretary-General at the UN, and is currently an Indian politician representing the Congress party in the Lower House of Parliament.)
Approximately one-third of the newspaper's workforce was laid off. More than 300 journalists in total. The standalone sports section and the Book World section are gone. 

Foreign bureaux across Asia (including the one in New Delhi) and the Middle East are shut. The metro desk, once 40 reporters strong, has been reduced to a dozen. 

The daily flagship news podcast, Post Reports, has been suspended, and deep cuts made to the photography and design departments.

Executive Editor Matt Murray described the move as a "strategic reset" to ensure long-term survival amid falling subscriber numbers and competition from AI-led news aggregation. Shortly after these cuts, on February 8, CEO Will Lewis resigned from the paper. 

Pranshu Verma's last story for The Washington Post 
from New Delhi in the February 3 edition.

JOURNALISTIC HIGHS

Think of The Washington Post, and it's Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein who come to mind. These two young reporters, in the 1970s, began investigating what looked like a minor burglary at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in the Watergate complex.

One lead led to another. They didn't give up. Ably backed by their editor Ben Bradlee and publisher Katharine Graham, the two uncovered a massive conspiracy -- which came to be known as the Watergate Scandal -- that went all the way to the White House. President Richard Nixon had to resign in 1974.

Easily one of the best works in journalism ever. It is all well chronicled in the book All The President's Men, and also in the film by the same name. The book is available on Amazon and the film is available on YouTube.

Top post on BlogchatterIn fact, the 1970s were the golden years for the Post. Only a few years earlier, it had published, defying government pressure, the Pentagon Papers — a top-secret U.S. Department of Defense report on the Vietnam War. (The New York Times also published them.)

OWNERSHIP CHANGES

Founded in 1877, The Washington Post struggled financially for decades. Then, financier Eugene Meyer purchased it in 1933. Under Meyer and his successors, particularly his daughter Katharine Graham, the Post became a sort of role model for journalists around the world.

For 80 years, the Post was run by the Meyer-Graham family. It prioritised its mission over short-term profits, took risks, and invested in expensive investigations.

Then came the internet and social media in the late 1990s and 2000s, impacting newspapers. They changed entirely the way people consumed news, but more importantly, how much they were willing to pay for it.

With print advertising collapsing and circulation dropping, even the Meyer-Graham family's wealth couldn't insulate the Post from being affected.

In 2013, the family made a momentous decision. They sold The Washington Post to to Nash Holdings, a holding company owned by Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, for $250 million.

It was sad. But there was some hope. Because Bezos was one of the richest in the world and he understood technology in ways that traditional publishers didn't. Maybe he had the solution on how to make journalism financially viable in the digital age.

That hope wasn't misplaced. The paper invested heavily in digital infrastructure, and it saw an increase in subscriptions.

But that didn't last long. The Post simply couldn't find its way forward in this modern tech-driven media world. Revenes and circulation began to fall.

COST OF RUNNING A NEWSROOM

Quality journalism is very expensive. You need a big team of journalists. They need to be paid their salaries, as well as travel and boarding expenses if they have to go outstation. Maintaining a bureau abroad is even more expensive.

A newsroom needs a big team of copy editors to work on the reporters' copy, correct errors, and fact-check; lawyers to review possible defamatory claims; photographers and videographers; digital teams to work on video and audio, to build and maintain websites, apps, and social media streams.

It is all very cost-intensive.

Now, if there is a layoff, that means fewer journalists will have to handle a bigger volume of work. That means quality declines.

COLLAPSE OF MONOPOLY AND REVENUE MODEL

Those were the days when everyone turned to newspapers for everything — both readers as well as advertisers.

If you wanted to buy a car, sell a house, or find a job, you looked advertisements. If you wanted to know what was happening in your city or the world, you bought a newspaper. Publishers charged advertisers a hefty sum.

The internet completely destroyed this model. Advertisers don't need newspapers. They send their messages directly to their specific target audience for free, or maybe a fraction of the cost.

News too comes free. Why buy a newspaper when you can get news from several newspapers online virtually at no cost?

Social media has only made things worse. Very few people now look for, or read, or listen to news. They just discover it (mainly clickbait stories) on algorithm-powered platforms like Facebook, X, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, etc. And of course, there are "very credible" WhatsApp forwards from unknown people too!

While these tech companies make money, the actual sources of news (the media organisations) on these platforms get virtually nothing.

Now with artificial intelligence, you don't even click on news links to read a story. The AI reads a vast amount of articles on a particular subject for you and gives you a well-drafted summary! So, now, even the clicks are gone!

In short, the business model that sustained journalism for more than 100 years has simply collapsed.

WORLDWIDE PHENOMENON

The Washington Post isn't the only organisation going through this phase. The Los Angeles Times had multiple rounds of layoffs. NBC News, CBS News, etc., have all reduced their staff.

The Evening Standard in London, a newspaper with almost 200 years of history, in 2024 converted its newspaper from a daily format to a weekly format due to financial constraints, and in the process laid off 150 employees, including many journalists.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Radio Canada announced in 2023 that they would eliminate approximately 600 jobs and not fill 200 existing vacancies, because of financial constraints.

It's not just legacy print media. Even digital media organisations are cutting staff. In 2023, BuzzFeed shut down its news division, and Vice Media filed for bankruptcy.

In India too, almost all big media houses have seen layoffs over the past several years.

IT'S NOT ALWAYS ABOUT MONEY

Journalism is not marketing or sales. Work cannot be quantified. It's never about numbers.

This is probably the only industry where the product (the newspaper/magazine) is sold at a price far lower than the cost price.

Most media organisations have always struggled to make ends meet. They survive mostly by cross-subsidising (the profits from a successful product/service are used to offset the losses of another).

WHITHER JOURNALISM?

The reasoning behind the The Washington Post layoffs is that because of shrinking revenues, the Post wants to focus now on fewer areas (mainly Washington and the rest of the US) rather than cover everything around the world.

To be fair, Jeff Bezos has every right to run the paper the way he wants. If he wants to take the Post in a totally different direction, that's entirely his call.

But what is worrying is the broader impact on journalism.

Since anyone with an internet connection can now post any information in the public domain, the definition of news itself seems to have changed. In fact, unverified and sensational information has a higher likelihood of being passed around as news.

Very few people are interested in a balanced and well-rounded coverage of an issue. People want only information that aligns with their own line of thinking. They are lost in the comforts of the echo chamber. Contrarian views are usually rubbished and dismissed contemptuously.

Democracy requires an informed citizenry. When newsrooms shrink, many important news events aren't covered. Even if they do get covered, it is not comprehensive work. The space for informed public debate also shrinks.

Journalism is not public relations. Journalism is about looking at all aspects of an issue. It's about debates covering diverse perspectives. It's about uncomfortable truths. It's the Fourth Estate (the others being the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary).

So where does journalism go from here?

There are no easy answers, because we're in a period of painful transition. One, the old business model is dead and the new model hasn't yet emerged. Two, public relations and sensationalism are increasingly mistaken for journalism.

Media houses are experimenting with different revenue models. One is the subscription model; either the whole website is behind a paywall, or a part of it is. Newspapers and magazines are increasing their cover prices.

Another is having non-profit ownership, wherein there is no pressure on the media house to generate returns for the investors or owners.

There is a lot that the news-reading public can do as well.

One, pay for good journalism. 

Two, never forward or put into the public domain information that is unverified or speculative.

Three, don't just read the headlines and short summary. Read the whole story.

Four, remember the value of journalism — it is too precious to be allowed to die.

36 comments:

  1. I wonder if Bezos will turn the WAPO into a completely pro-Trump paper. He's being such a fan boy!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Corinne - He might, he might not. There aren't very obvious signs, at least as of now, that it's gone totally over to the right. There are articles that are critical of the administration's policies.

      Delete
  2. Hari Om
    I have two media outlets I trust to bring me all the essential news and am happy to pay subs to them. I also pay for a podcast feed with trusted independent journalism. Too many people, though, I feel, are only after 'gossip'... Thanks for the write up on what it takes! YAM xx

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Yamini - I am glad. I get two newspapers delivered at home. Besides I am subscribed to the Magzter app, an aggregator of the electronic versions (e-papers) of print newspapers and magazines, both Indian as well as foreign.
      I am an optimist. I think this phase will run its course and gradually print will find its way back.

      Delete
  3. An interesting perspective, Pradeep. One thing we know, the Washington Post has been in a slow death spiral since Jeff Bezos bought it and sought to curry favour with Donald Trump. It's hard to see how this can be reversed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very sad, David. If a newspaper chooses to highlight only one or a few cherry-picked sides of an issue, then it's not journalism!

      Delete
  4. We all knew when Bezos took over that it was just a matter of time. Because the problem is those with the money are only in it for more money. It's not about the journalism. And our world is paying that price, heavily.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True. Money is needed to run the business of journalism. But if business is the only priority and journalism is ignored in the process, then it's truly unfortunate.

      Delete
  5. Bezos aligning himself with #47 will not have done any favours for circulation numbers. I expect he only bought the paper in the name of vanity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are businessmen who use the media to further their business interests. And when it comes at the cost of journalism, society suffers. A viable balance between business and journalism is what is required; a challenge, but not impossible.

      Delete
  6. It’s all very sad, Pradeep. I fear we are heading inexorably towards idiocracy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, hard days, Val. Hopefully the right balance is found and there are brighter days ahead.

      Delete
  7. Cutting 30% of newsroom staff doesn’t just reduce headcount — it erodes depth of coverage. Fewer reporters means less ability to follow complex global events, investigate government power, cover communities and sport, or hold institutions accountable. we risk a future where less journalism means less accountability, less context and less connection to the realities of people around the world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. A part of democracy dies when journalism dies. Yes, money is indeed needed to run a media organisation. (After all, journalists need a salary.) But at the same time, it is possible to take care of business even while prioritising journalism. Thank you for your comment.

      Delete
  8. I find it so disheartening reading all the different aspects of what is going on in the US. It makes me want to retreat further and further into being as far away from world politics as possible. I think I'll stay in my little bubble and read my Aussie newspapers quietly as far away from the world as I can....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Leanne - The sheer volume of disheartening news can be truly exhausting. Sometimes, retreating into a 'quiet bubble' isn't just a choice, it’s necessary! Enjoy your Aussie newspapers!

      Delete
  9. Very thoughtful post, Pradeep. It is increasingly difficult to strain the facts from the fiction in stories these days. I was caught out recently by very convincing 'reporting.'
    The truth we read and hear is someone else's truth, sometimes carefully adjudicated to enhance a particular philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very true, especially with technologies like Artificial Intelligence. The worst part is one can't even believe people occupying high positions. When they speak, they are factually incorrect. Now, whom to believe? It's very sad.

      Delete
  10. Hi Pradeep,
    First, Newsweek folded; a few others followed. I continued to get print subscriptions like the WSJ here in the US all these years, until two months ago, which I stopped after it became prohibitively expensive. As expected, everyone is adding huge paywalls online, whether an Indian newspaper, the BBC, or a US one. This will only lead people to rely more and more on TV channels, and, as you know, they are not unbiased. Even radio channels are unreliable these days. It is not just the US, and most news channels have global reach and cross-country ownership.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's the age of crisis of credibility. In the public domain, easily a lot of information is either factually incorrect or misleading. Paywalls have become a necessity for the media houses. But on the other side, when important information goes behind steep paywalls, the readers and the society end up losers. The media will have to figure out a revenue model that will not only sustain them, but also ensure that they have the readers with them.

      Delete
    2. Thanks Pradeep,
      Yes, of course, well understood. Just that paywall pricing is not proportional.
      Perhaps we should start using consolidators like Magster, Apple News, etc.
      Anyway, it looks like print media (which I love) will die soon.
      I still remember how your dad made us read the news daily in the school assembly, and then focused on improving our handwriting.
      Today, if I write in legible cursive/running hand, very few in the US can read it.
      When I read old handwritten English manuscripts from the British Library archives (18th century) without much difficulty, even Englishmen express surprise.
      The ways of our old world are rapidly transforming - I hope for the better eventually ... AI zindabad..

      Delete
  11. With the advent of the internet and bloggers and vloggers and influencers biting off a big chunk of reportage has left serious journalism high and dry. It is the same story among photographers and serious travel writers too. The choice that the reader is offered today is vast and it becomes imperative, as you have pointed out, on the part of the consumer to pay for quality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I can imagine how photographers and serious travel writers have been impacted. People have a vast choice, but the challenge is how good are most of them. I guess, with time, once this phase runs its course, people will figure out whom to trust and whom not to.

      Delete
  12. When I read about Ishan Tharoor's - as well as others' - lay off, I was stunned too. I used to be a regular reader of the Tharoor column in the Post.

    This morning's Hindu newspaper carries an article on AI and its impacts on the world. AI is causing a rupture not a transition, says the writer. So true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True, the way AI is panning out, it's going to make a huge impact. Already it's being felt. The scary part is there is no real clarity on the extent of impact.

      Delete
  13. I don't mind the anti-Trump posts if there was an equal balance of pro-Trump (no tax on social security, lower drug prices, that sort). Sigh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Jacqui Murray - So, far it looks reasonably balanced.

      Delete
  14. I still believe in receiving news the old-fashioned way—via newspapers. I don't trust news received on social media.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Marietta - O, yes.. Plenty advantages for physical products over the digital ones. Trust factor is one thing. Besides that you get a more contextual understanding of different issues. I too get physical newspapers at home.

      Delete
  15. With all due respect, I prefer YouTube content creators for news. ~shrugs~ Best wishes to you and yours!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Darla - Nothing wrong with YouTube creators. One just needs be convinced about their credibility and authenticity. There are plenty of independent YT creators who are doing as good as, or even better than, professional journalists.

      Delete
  16. You clearly explain not just the layoffs at The Washington Post, but also the wider challenges facing quality reporting today. It really drives home how much effort and skill goes into producing reliable news, and why supporting it matters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Meldoy - Thank you for dropping by and for your comments.

      Delete
  17. People losing their jobs in any sector is never a good thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Linda - Yes, that's true. But, an unfortunate reality of our times.

      Delete
  18. I read a weekly newspaper, although it is classed as a magazine. I collates the weeks news and summarises it in a balanced way. It references articles from various reputable news sources.

    ReplyDelete

I appreciate your comments. Thank you.
If your email ID is enabled in the Blogger profile, I'll reply to your comments via email because you won't have to come back here or look through email notifications to read my reply.
I might copy-paste the replies here if I feel they might be of interest to others as well.
For everyone else, I'll reply here.