Why Are People Canceling 'The Washington Post'? Subscribers Flee After Jeff Bezos Defends 11th-Hour Decision

For over 100 years, The Washington Post has been a reputable and independent newspaper outlet that caters to the kind of high-profile news stories that Americans need to hear. From politics to human interest, economics, business, and everything in between, the newspaper has covered thousands of stories.

In the past, the paper has offered endorsements of political candidates the publication feels best align with the country's best interests. In both 2016 and 2020, those endorsements went to rivals of former President Donald Trump: former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Joe Biden. This time, things were different. A last-minute decision rocked the Post's subscriber base and has sent hundreds of thousands fleeing the newspaper's subscriptions. Here's what we know.

As the 2024 election creeps closer, the Post announced that they would not be endorsing anyone. The shock of the non-endorsement combined with its timing has users furious and canceling subscriptions. The Post, which is owned by Amazon founder and billionaire Jeff Bezos, has seen a wave of resignations among writers and protests among some of the company's highest as the nation faces yet another consequential election.

In an opinion piece published on the Post, Bezos has defended the decision, suggesting that the timing was simply, "inadequate planning and not some intentional strategy." The billionaire lamented the timing of the decision but said that the intent was to avoid the "perception of bias." Bezos says that newspaper endorsements don't shift the needle of support, but they can lend a perception of bias and his intent is to revive faith in journalism, independence, and a lack of bias.

Nonetheless, over 200,000 subscribers have canceled so far, and that number seems poised to climb. Post journalists report that their family members are among those canceling, and several staff writers have walked out. To those critical of this decision, this election is too important to change policies for.

Yet it wasn't just the timing of the decision that has subscribers, or rather former subscribers, up in arms. There was a meeting between Bezos's aerospace company, Blue Origin, and Trump's political team just hours after the Post announced that there would not be an endorsement.

In his opinion piece, Bezos describes "sighing" when he found out about the meeting, because he knew that it would create the perception of bias he claims to want to avoid. Bezos said that the meeting had nothing to do with the newspaper's decision to avoid an endorsement and that he is not looking to protect his business interests despite the seemingly suspicious timing of the meeting.

Bezos suggests that his wealth is a bulwark against corruption, as it makes him too rich to buy out. Concerns about his business dealings making him likely to use the Post for personal gain, he suggests, are unfounded.

And despite the odd timing of the decision not to run an endorsement, the Post does have a history of coming down hard on one candidate in particular: Trump. Although the outlet has certainly posted unflattering fact-checks of all politicians, Trump was squarely at the center of many revealing stories which they broke about the former president's wrongdoings and often criminal involvement.

During the 2016 and 2020 election cycles, Bezos didn't restrain his journalists from digging deeply into Trump's actions, and the former president has often blasted the newspaper for being biased against him.

So while it's a curious decision and the timing couldn't be worse, according to those who don't appreciate the decision, it would be a strange way to aid one candidate over the other. The Washington Post is highly awarded for its excellence in journalism and lack of bias, but this decision may have a ripple effect down the line.

So far, cancellations represent about 8 percent of the outlet's subscriber base. With outrage growing against Bezos, his Amazon Prime subscriptions and Whole Foods customer base are at risk too. If he made the move to protect business interests, it may not plan out to be financially advantageous at all.