Washington

The Washington Post bleeds subscriptions as Bezos responds to endorsement criticism – Poynter

Published

1 year ago

October 29, 2024

The Washington Post bleeds subscriptions as Bezos responds to endorsement criticism – Poynter

The exodus at The Washington Post continues. Both from staff and readers. Two more Post writers have resigned from the editorial board in protest of owner Jeff Bezos blocking the board from writing an endorsement of Kamala Harris for president.

And in what is an absolutely stunning number, NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik reported the Post had more than 200,000 digital subscriptions canceled as of midday Monday. That would be about 8% of the paper’s paid circulation of 2.5 million subscribers, which includes the print product. That 200,000 number is expected to rise.

Meanwhile, Molly Roberts and Pulitzer Prize winner David E. Hoffman both announced Monday that they have resigned from the Post’s editorial board. (Both will remain at the paper.)

In a lengthy post on X, Roberts wrote, “To be very clear, the decision not to endorse this election was not the editorial board’s. It was (you can read the reporting) Jeff Bezos’s. By registering my dissent, I don’t intend to impugn the conduct of any of my colleagues, all of whom were put in nearly impossible positions.”

Roberts would add, “I’m resigning from The Post editorial board because the imperative to endorse Kamala Harris over Donald Trump is about as morally clear as it gets. Worse, our silence is exactly what Donald Trump wants: for the media, for us, to keep quiet.”

In his resignation from the editorial board letter, Hoffman wrote how, for decades, Post editorials have been “a beacon of light, signaling hope to dissidents, political prisoners and the voiceless.” After more examples, Hoffman wrote, “Under our watch at The Post, no one would be lost in silence.”

He then added, “Until Friday, I assumed we would apply the same values and principles to an editorial endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris. I believe we face a very real threat of autocracy in the candidacy of Donald Trump. I find it untenable and unconscionable that we have lost our voice at this perilous moment.”

This has turned into a public relations nightmare for the Post.

CNN’s Brian Stelter wrote, “Thousands of perturbed and disappointed customers continue to cancel their Washington Post subscriptions as a result of Jeff Bezos’s decision to block the publication from endorsing Kamala Harris. Post leaders are shook-up — but unable to stop the proverbial bleeding since Bezos is the one in charge.”

As I wrote in Monday’s newsletter, one can understand readers being upset and looking for some form of protest. The easiest is canceling their subscription to the Post. But that likely only hurts Post staffers, who are just as angry as the readers. Other than folks saying rotten things about him, the person behind the decision to not endorse — owner Jeff Bezos — isn’t going to really feel the impact of canceled subscriptions, even if they run into the hundreds of thousands. (Although, I must admit that number is way more than I could have imagined.)

The resignations and public objections by journalists at the Post do, however, help take the onus away from the paper and put it squarely where it belongs: on Bezos. The Post’s reputation might be taking a hit over this, but the journalists at the papers are doing their best to say how much they disapprove of the decision and, perhaps, helping the newsroom and editorial board maintain some integrity.

And Hoffman made it clear that he is not giving up on the Post.

In an interview with the Post’s Manuel Roig-Franzia, conducted before Hoffman announced his resignation from the editorial board, he said, “It’s extremely difficult for us because we built this institution. But we can’t give up on our American democracy or The Post.”

In a column over the weekend, Washington Post opinion columnist Dana Milbank wrote that he understands the anger from readers and he shares it. But he’s not quitting and he hopes readers don’t quit on the Post either.

He wrote, “Of course, if Friday’s non-endorsement announcement is followed by other demands from our owner that we bend the knee to Trump, that’s a different matter. If this turns out to be the beginning of a crackdown on our journalistic integrity — if journalists are ordered to pull their punches, called off sensitive stories or fired for doing their jobs — my colleagues and I will be leading the calls for Post readers to cancel their subscriptions, and we’ll be resigning en masse.”

Milbank went on to write, “ … for the past nine years, I’ve been labeling Trump a racist and a fascist, adding more evidence each week — and not once have I been stifled. I’ve never even met nor spoken to Bezos. The moment I’m told I can no longer report the truth will be the moment to find other work. Until then, I’ll keep writing. I hope you’ll keep reading.”

But, The New York Times’ Benjamin Mullin reported that in an “intense” meeting involving Post opinion editor David Shipley and staff on Monday, one staffer said the damage done was “incalculable.”

Mullin also reported that Bezos had reservations about an endorsement for president as far back as September, but that Shipley was trying to get Bezos to move off that position.

After several days of upheaval, Bezos finally responded to all the criticism in an op-ed for the Post published Monday evening.

Bezos wrote, “Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, ‘I’m going with Newspaper A’s endorsement.’ None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it’s the right one.”

That feels like a lame excuse. By that standard, a paper should never write an editorial about anything.

The timing of the announcement, Bezos admitted, could have been better, writing, “I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it. That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.

Bezos also wrote, “I would also like to be clear that no quid pro quo of any kind is at work here. Neither campaign nor candidate was consulted or informed at any level or in any way about this decision. It was made entirely internally.”

Bezos admitted that Dave Limp, the chief executive of Bezos’ aerospace company Blue Origin, met with Trump on the day that Post announced there would be no endorsement.

Bezos wrote, “I sighed when I found out, because I knew it would provide ammunition to those who would like to frame this as anything other than a principled decision. But the fact is, I didn’t know about the meeting beforehand. Even Limp didn’t know about it in advance; the meeting was scheduled quickly that morning. There is no connection between it and our decision on presidential endorsements, and any suggestion otherwise is false.”

Bezos wrote that he is not the ideal owner of the Post. That’s because executives at his companies, such as Amazon and Blue Origin, are always meeting with government officials. However, Bezos defended his ownership of the Post, writing, “I assure you that my views here are, in fact, principled, and I believe my track record as owner of The Post since 2013 backs this up. You are of course free to make your own determination, but I challenge you to find one instance in those 11 years where I have prevailed upon anyone at The Post in favor of my own interests. It hasn’t happened.”

There’s much more to Bezos’ op-ed and I encourage you to read it in full. But I doubt that his words will placate angry readers or tamp down the resentment inside the Post.

This piece originally appeared in The Poynter Report, our daily newsletter for everyone who cares about the media. Subscribe to The Poynter Report here.

Source link

Click to comment

Washington

Love Actually? Washington’s current relationship with Britain is more like Contempt Actually | Timothy Garton Ash

Published

8 hours ago

March 21, 2026

Press Room

Love Actually? Washington’s current relationship with Britain is more like Contempt Actually | Timothy Garton Ash

“A friend who bullies us is no longer a friend. And since bullies only respond to strength, from now onward, I will be prepared to be much stronger. And the president should be prepared for that.” Thus spoke Hugh Grant, playing the British prime minister confronting the US president in a famous scene in the romcom Love Actually. Real-life British prime minister Keir Starmer has attempted to stand up ever so slightly to the current bully in the White House over the latest US war in the Middle East. Despite the British government’s right-royal efforts to flatter Donald Trump ever since he was elected US president, his response to Starmer’s little attempt has been a torrent of contempt. So the reality is not Love Actually. It’s Contempt Actually.

Asked about the British government’s subtle distinction between defensive strikes in the Gulf, which it now supports, and offensive ones, which it doesn’t, Maga ideologue Steve Bannon tells the New Statesman’s Freddie Hayward: “That’s diplomatic bullshit. Fuck you. You’re either an ally or you’re not. Fuck you. The special relationship is over.” Ah, the “special relationship”! It must be 40 years since I first heard former West German chancellor Helmut Schmidt say: “The special relationship is so special only one side knows it exists.”

An American critic of Trump recently asked me the obvious follow-up question: “Why does your government keep grovelling?” More fundamentally, we must ask why so much of official Britain, and especially its security establishment, keeps clinging for dear life to the United States, behaving for all the world like someone stuck in an abusive personal relationship.

To be fair, a lot of other European leaders have spent much of the past year sacrificing their dignity as they suck up to Trump, condoning his trashing of everything that liberal Europe has stood for since 1945. Mark Rutte, the secretary general of Nato, would beat Starmer to win Private Eye’s premier satirical medal, the OBN (Order of the Brown Nose). The reasons for this sycophancy are obvious: Europe’s dependence on the US for supporting Ukraine, for our own security in Nato and, to a significant degree, for our prosperity. But there’s a particular, rather pathetic desperation about the way the British cling to Uncle Sam.

The explanation? History, of course. The US founding fathers grew up thinking of themselves as Englishmen. From 1776 to 1917, when the US entered the first world war, this was, as the historian Robert Saunders nicely puts it, not so much a special as a peculiar relationship. The US defined itself historically against Britain, but there was a mutual fascination. Following the brief but important military alliance in 1917-18, and the subsequent peacemaking in Paris, the US withdrew from Europe.

A special relationship really did exist between 1941, when Winston Churchill managed – with a little help from the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor – to bring the US into the war against Adolf Hitler, and 1956, when the US humiliatingly stopped Britain and France from retaking the Suez canal. The UK and the US were not equals, but this was still a real power partnership, jointly shaping Europe, if not the world.

Trump v Starmer: will the special relationship survive? – The Latest

France and Britain drew sharply contrasting conclusions from their humiliation over Suez. France, under president Charles de Gaulle, built its own independent nuclear deterrent and had already identified the goal that the current French president, Emmanuel Macron, calls European strategic autonomy. Britain, after a brief period of angry alienation from Washington, doubled down on prioritising its relationship with the US. If we could no longer be a great power ourselves, we would be “Athens to America’s Rome”.

Unlike France, Britain built a nuclear deterrent that was and remains technologically dependent on the US, and always put Nato before European construction. In many ways, the British-American relationship did get closer: in intelligence and military cooperation, in academia and media, in finance and the economy (today the UK is the top destination of US direct investment, just ahead of the Netherlands). But at the same time, Britain’s political influence in Washington was steadily diminishing. It clung to it all the more.

The late British Labour politician Robin Cook reported in his memoirs how, in a crucial cabinet debate in the run-up to the Iraq war, then prime minister Tony Blair said: “I tell you that we must steer close to America. If we don’t, we will lose our influence to shape what they do.” But how much influence was there really?

Today, Blair’s former chief of staff Jonathan Powell sits at Starmer’s right hand in 10 Downing Street, trying to do the same with the Trumpians. “We have those relationships so we can have those difficult conversations,” says an anonymous Whitehall source. But the conversations are not difficult for Washington. They are for London, because it has so little clout left.

This trend has been exacerbated by two other developments. The first is the decline of Britain’s armed forces. American soldiers who spent years fighting alongside the British now tell me, with something more like pity than contempt: “You barely have an army any more.” In the current conflict, France got a naval ship to Cyprus before Britain did, although it was a British military base on Cyprus that was attacked by Iran. This weakness, too, finds its echo in popular culture. In the latest season of the Netflix political soap The Diplomat, the saturnine US vice-president (brilliantly played by Rufus Sewell) riffs off the children’s book The Little Engine That Could to describe Britain as “the little island that couldn’t”. Ouch.

The second is Brexit. It’s just blindingly obvious that the UK is less important to the US than it used to be because it’s no longer part of a larger bloc. In Blair’s time, for all the long-term waning of influence, Britain still had two relatively strong legs: the transatlantic one and, as a member of the EU, the European one. In 2016, in what we can today see even more clearly was an act of monumental stupidity, Britain chose to cut off its own European leg. Now Trump is cutting the American one.

Here’s the other reason for Britain’s peculiar, rather pathetic desperation. Unlike France or Germany, it doesn’t have another leg to stand on.

For anyone who loves this country, it’s painful to see how it has reduced itself to being an object of contempt – or at best, pity. Fortunately, there is a path back to self-respect and being respected. While keeping the best possible relations with the US, Britain can set a strategic course towards being a core part of a stronger Europe. This means helping to build up European defence, especially through the Europeanisation of Nato, and it means – as London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, has just usefully suggested – rejoining the EU. How this could be done, in a timeframe of five to 10 years, and whether it will be possible politically, on both sides of the Channel, are subjects for further columns. Watch this space.

Source link

Washington

Polymarket opening ‘Situation Room’ pop-up bar in DC. See when.

Published

20 hours ago

March 20, 2026

Press Room

Polymarket opening ‘Situation Room’ pop-up bar in DC. See when.

Prediction betting market platform Polymarket is opening a “Situation Room” pop-up bar in the nation’s capital that will be “dedicated to monitoring the situation.”

The company announced its latest business endeavor in an X post on Wednesday, March 18.

“Imagine a sports bar… but just for situation monitoring — live X feeds, flight radar, Bloomberg terminals, and Polymarket screens,” the company’s statement said.

The bar opens to the public in Washington, DC, on Friday, March 20, and will operate until Sunday, March 22. The Situation Room will open on 8 p.m. on March 20 and at 11 a.m. on March 21-22, according to Polymarket. The company did not specify how long the bar will remain open; however, Proper 21 K Street, where the pop-up is taking place, closes at 12 a.m. ET Monday-Sunday, according to its website.

Last month, Polymarket opened a free supermarket in New York City to promote free markets. Polymarket donated $1 million to Food Bank For NYC as part of its endeavor.

“Free groceries. Free markets. Built for the people who power New York,” the company said in an announcement.

What is Polymarket?

Polymarket allows users to bet on the outcomes of real-world events, everything from who will win the Academy Award for best actress to when the United States will confirm the existence of aliens.

Top trending bets on the platform on Friday, March 20, included whether the United States would invade Cuba in 2026 and who the 2028 Republican presidential nominee would be, among others.

Betting platform under scrutiny over ‘Situation Room’ name, more

Polymarket has come under intense scrutiny since its launch in 2020. In January, the Nevada Gaming Control Board filed a civil enforcement action against the company. In the complaint, the Board asked the court for a declaration and injunction to stop Polymarket from offering unlicensed wagering in violation of Nevada law.

However, Nevada isn’t the only entity trying to take the platform to court. Brett Bruen, the chief executive of the Global Situation Room, a public affairs agency, called the company out on X for allegedly using the organization’s trademarked name.

“We have @GlobalSitRoom & related terms trademarked (checks notes) …for tracking situations around the globe,” Bruen wrote. “Flattered, really – it’s a great name. But, no, you can’t use it. Yes, my lawyers will be in touch.”

Global Situation Room also sent a cease and desist letter to Polymarket, alleging that the company’s use of the “Situation Room” name gives a false impression that Global Situation Room is “somehow connected or associated with Polymarket’s services,” CNBC reported, citing a letter from the public relations agency.

“Indeed, there are obvious overlaps in the uses of GLOBAL SITUATION ROOM and THE SITUATION ROOM such as both marks include ‘SITUATION ROOM’ and allow consumers to monitor and act on global affairs,” the letter, written by Shane Delsman, an attorney at Milwaukee, Wisconsin-based law firm Godfrey & Kahn, reads. “In fact, the marks are so similar, Global Situation Room has already witnessed actual confusion in the form of press requests to comment on the opening of the new THE SITUATION ROOM bar.”

USA TODAY reached out to Polymarket for comment on March 20.

Michelle Del Rey is a trending news reporter at USA TODAY. Reach her at mdelrey@usatoday.com

Source link

Washington

Devils Head to Nation’s Capital | PREVIEW | New Jersey Devils

Published

1 day ago

March 20, 2026

Press Room

Devils Head to Nation’s Capital | PREVIEW | New Jersey Devils

THE SCOOP

The Devils opened their five-game road trip with a 6-3 victory at New York’s Madison Square Garden on Wednesday night. New Jersey’s faces Washington on the second leg that includes stops in Dallas, Nashville and Carolina.

New Jersey is now 7-2-0 in its past nine games. The Devils are enjoying an offensive explosion of late. During their past nine games, New Jersey has totaled 4.11 goals per game. And they’ve scored 10 power-play goals on 24 opportunities (42%).

The Caps head into the back half of their season-long four-game homestand on Friday night when the New Jersey Devils make their second visit of the season to DC. Washington has earned at least a point in each of the first two games of the homestand, taking a 3-2 shootout loss to the Bruins last weekend before beating the Senators by a 4-1 count on Wednesday.

Wednesday’s win still leaves the Caps with less than a 10-percent chance of slinking their way into the Stanley Cup playoffs. With just 13 games remaining on the season, the Caps will likely need to win at least nine – and likely 10 or 11 – of those games to have a viable chance of getting in.

Rookie Cole Hutson, who made his NHL debut Wednesday night, also picked up his first career NHL goal with an empty-netter. Hutson was a second-round pick (43rd overall) in 2024.

Source link