The Washington Post is collapsing, and this is affecting people far beyond the media industry. On the one hand, this is because Washington itself has been shaken, not just an institution brimming with Pulitzer Prize winners that once brought down a president. Thanks to various movies, Watergate is a household name to younger people as well. On the other hand, the capitulation of the media company – it can hardly be called anything else in view of the layoffs of 300 journalists and the withdrawal (or dismissal) of CEO Will Lewis –, also shines a spotlight on the state of the industry. In the new, rapidly changing media world, no one is safe, not even the proud Washington Post.
The case is both unique and generalizable. Unique because it is not only about the decline of a media company, but also about the moral decline of Jeff Bezos as a person. The Amazon founder bought the Post in 2013 for $250 million and held on to it despite several offers, his motivation for doing so never becoming entirely clear. It is generalizable because there are some lessons to be learned from the collapse of the Post. The layoffs are accompanied by a redirection of content, which one may not like but can understand given the circumstances.
But first, let’s look at the specifics. This is the Bezos who, during Trump’s first term in office, approved the Post‘s advertising slogan “Democracy dies in darkness” and gave the highly decorated then editor-in-chief Martin (Marty) Baron a free hand in exposing all the crimes and misdemeanours emanating from Washington. Baron, who has been publicly expressing his deep disappointment with Bezos for some time, described all this in detail in his book “Collision of Power,” published in 2023. The same Bezos then decreed shortly before the 2024 presidential election that the Post was not to publish any endorsement this time around. Given the timing, this was seen by many as kowtowing to candidate Donald Trump. Hundreds of thousands of readers subsequently quit as subscribers. Right after the announcement, the editorial team reported 250,000 cancellations, ten percent of the total digital subscribers.
Since then, Bezos has joined the ranks of those tech bosses who have curried favor with the new administration not only symbolically, but also in deeds. Whether this is done for purely business or possibly even ideological reasons will vary from case to case. One might kindly assume that Bezos is concerned with his fortune and not with a long-planned coup to undermine the fourth estate in the capital. But the fact that he had the opinion section trimmed toward “personal freedoms and free markets” shortly after Trump took office also indicates a change of course. In American newspapers, the opinion section is not headed by the editor-in-chief, but by an opinion editor, David Shipley, who subsequently resigned. Here, the specific contains something general: it is a risk that should not be underestimated to rely structurally on the moral integrity of a single person, billionaire or not. (This should also be taken to heart by those who see the future of journalism in the creator economy, by the way.) In other words, the “billionaire buys newspaper” business model can work as long as that billionaire remains true to his or her values.
As has been widely reported elsewhere, the management of the Washington Post has now imposed drastic cost-cutting measures: more than a third of all reporters have to go, the sports and literature sections are being completely shut down, and foreign reporting is being scaled back. A Ukraine correspondent received her notice of termination while reporting in Kiev. The tech journalist who was responsible for the coverage of Amazon also has to leave the company. The new focus will be on domestic and security policy. It’s back to basics in Washington.
It’s to be expected that journalists around the world are reeling amidst these announcements. They mourn the decline from the celebrated, well-resourced competitor of the New York Times to a publication targeting the Washington home team. Once again, attractive job opportunities are disappearing. Sports reporters feel their days are numbered—quite a few top journalists began their careers on the sidelines of sports grounds. And those who dream of working as foreign correspondents or already do so are once again cringing. It has long been obvious that there is less demand for this type of reporter in a globally and digitally connected world than there was in the days when having a pair of eyes on the ground was essential for publications with a journalistic reputation.
However, the WaPo‘s return to its core values can also be interpreted as a long overdue step. In an information and communication world where content is increasingly brought to light by AI searches, every media company must find its own special place, making itself indispensable and distinctive. What department stores have been experiencing for decades is now also coming to the media industry: the concept of a full-range retailer no longer works. Relying solely on a glorious past, a strong brand, and brilliant journalists is not enough. The Washington Post has reacted rather late to this development. But at least it is doing so. Media organizations that are less strict with their balance sheets still have this painful process ahead of them. Where the restructuring is delayed for too long, there may eventually be nothing left to save.
You can already hear the critics shouting: “But The New York Times…” Yes, in the same week that the Washington Post announced its downsizing plans, its New York rival published strong figures. But the management there has done a number of things right, which is now benefiting it in a winner-takes-all economy. Unlike the Washington Post, it has not relied solely on its strong journalism. It is a painful truth for journalists that the material for which they sometimes risk their lives is only one component of a bundle that people are willing to pay for. Millions of people today subscribe to the NYT not (only) because of its award-winning journalism, but because of the recipes, puzzles, and product reviews. With a clever internationalization strategy in the form of affordable subscriptions for customers outside the US, it understood earlier than its competitors how to build global loyalty. There is a certain irony in this: in retail, Amazon, as the remaining full-range retailer, has pushed countless others out of the market. Similarly, the New York Times is valued by educated classes worldwide as a powerhouse of media expertise that also helps you cook. There is no need for a second global player that now also has the misfortune of being associated in its name with an unreliable world power and its vassals.
However, it is not only the Times that is growing. In light of the crisis at the Washington Post, Charlotte Tobitt, a journalist at the British Press Gazette, examined the digital strategies of five successful American media companies. What they all have in common is that they have also established themselves in fields beyond pure journalism, whether it be the development of special digital products or events. This shows growth is possible in these market conditions. But it requires a strategy that goes beyond news journalism.
It is an open secret that strong investigative stories, such as those that established the Post‘s reputation, are good to cultivate ones image. However, because they are expensive to produce, most companies can only afford a handful of them in a certain period. But if you want to attract loyal media users, you need to get them to visit your site as often and for as long as possible. This is more successful with content that is more relevant to the lives of the specific target audience. Data analysts in many newsrooms know that the journalism that wins awards is often not the journalism that scores with the audience—and vice versa.
In the case of the Washington Post, the concept of investigative strength had even worked in the early Trump years: the many Trump critics in the capital were well served. During Joe Biden’s presidency, however, the connection to this readership weakened. Many no longer knew why they should subscribe to the Post of all newspapers. At the same time, successful digital start-ups such as Politico had challenged the newspaper’s unique selling point as a Washington insider. It was no longer necessary to subscribe to the Post to stay informed about events within the Beltway. According to official statements, the Post now wants to reclaim this territory.
In the age of AI, every company must also consider which field it wants to play in in the future. As understandable as the outrage over the discontinuation of the sports section is, reporting on results or detailed reports on the successes and failures of various teams can confidently be left to AI. For example, the BBC is already successfully using AI-automated audio commentary in regional sports—even in local accents. In the future, sports reporting will have to focus on personalities, lifestyle, and well-told stories. Incidentally, the New York Times also took the lead in this area when it acquired the appropriately positioned media brand The Athletic in 2022 – for more than twice the price Bezos once paid for the Post.
The same will become apparent in other areas of reporting: simply being there is no longer enough. Those who report internationally must do so better or differently than The New York Times, for example, with a view to a specific audience. Those who recommend books need a strong community or personal brands with extremely high credibility around them. Those who offer service or explanatory journalism should take the ChatGPT test: they must clearly exceed the level of chatbots. Media brands have a good chance of asserting themselves in the flood of artificially generated content if they sharpen their profile and build and maintain credibility with strong content or personalities.
Incidentally, what Jeff D’Onofrio, the acting CEO and former CFO of the Post, said after Lewis’s departure is not enough. He announced that the company wanted to use data to decide what customers needed. Data is indeed indispensable for steering and adjusting the offerings. However, what is even more important are values. This is especially true for media companies that are committed to democracy, as the Washington Posthas long been. Those who betray their value proposition to customers should not be surprised when their community implodes. The future of journalism is built on trusting, loyal relationships. The Washington Post has a long, hard road ahead of it.
This column was published in German by Medieninsider on 10 February 2026. It was translated with DeepL and edited by the author.
The British public can’t get enough news about Brexit – at least, that’s what news platforms’ data analytics say. But, according to the Reuters Institute’s latest Digital News Report, 71% of the British public tries to avoid media coverage of the United Kingdom’s impending departure from the European Union. This disparity, which can be seen in a wide range of areas, raises serious questions about news organizations’ increasingly data-driven approach to reporting.
The rise of data analytics has made journalists and their editors confident that they know what people want. And for good reason: with a large share of news consumed on the Internet, media platforms know exactly which stories readers open, how much they read before getting bored, what they share with their friends, and the type of content that entices them to sign up for a subscription.
Such data indicate, for example, that audiences are interested in extraordinary investigative journalism, diet and personal-finance advice, and essays about relationships and family. They prefer stories with a personal angle – say, detailing an affected individual’s fate – rather than reports on ongoing conflicts in the Middle East or city hall coverage. And they are drawn to sensational stories – such as about US President Donald Trump’s scandals and antics – under “clickbait” headlines.
But if newsrooms were really giving audiences what they wanted, it seems unlikely that almost one-third (32%) of respondents in the Digital News Report, the world’s largest ongoing survey of online news consumption, would report that they regularly avoid news altogether. But they did, and that figure is up three percentage points from two years ago.
The most common explanation for avoiding the news media, given by 58% of those who do, is that following it has a negative effect on their mood. Many respondents also cited a sense of powerlessness.
Moreover, only 16% of participants approve of the tone used in news coverage, while 39% disapprove. Young people, in particular, seem fed up with the negativity bias that has long been regarded as a sure-fire way to attract audiences. For many, that bias feels disempowering. Conversations indicate that the problem is compounded for young parents, who want to believe that the world will be good to their children. Younger generations also feel consuming news should be more entertaining and less of a chore.
One reason for the disconnect between the data and people’s self-reported relationship with the news media may be the “guilty pleasure” effect: people have an appetite for voyeurism, but would prefer not to admit it, sometimes even to themselves. So, even as they click on articles about grisly crimes or celebrity divorces, they may say that they want more “quality news.”
When newsrooms indulge readers’ worst impulses, the consequences are far-reaching. Media are integral to support accountability by anyone wielding power or influence, and to mobilize civic engagement. Democracies, in particular, depend on voters being well informed about pressing issues. News organizations thus have a responsibility to report on serious topics, from political corruption to climate change, even if they are unpleasant.
That does not mean that readers’ complaints about media’s negativity bias should be disregarded. On the contrary, if people are to be motivated to confront challenges that are shaping their lives, they should not be made to feel powerless.
This is where so-called solutions journalism comes in. By balancing information about what needs changing with true stories about positive change, news organizations can fulfill their responsibility both to inform and to spur progress. This means occasionally recognizing that over the long term, living standards have improved globally.
Reconnecting with audiences will also require media organizations to broaden their perspectives. In much of the West, it is largely white, male, middle-class journalists who decide what to cover and how. This limits news media’s ability to represent diverse societies fairly and accurately.
In fact, only 29% of Digital News Report respondents agreed that the topics the news media choose “feel relevant” to them. A joint study by the Reuters Institute and the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, indicates that the key to increasing this share is to increase diversity in newsrooms.
At the same time, news media need to do a better job of contextualizing and otherwise explaining the news. While 62% of Digital News Report respondents feel that media keep them apprised of events, only half believe news outlets are doing enough to help them understand what is happening. At a time when nearly one-third of people think that there is simply too much news being reported, the solution seems clear: do less, better.
This means listening to readers, not just studying the data analytics. It means balancing good news with bad news, and offering clarifying information when needed. It also means representing diverse perspectives. Media organizations that do not make these changes will continue to lose trust and relevance. That is hardly a sound strategy for convincing consumers that their work is worth paying for.