I agree with all of this. And just want to add that when these legacy institutions fold like an origami swan, the public loses a trusted source of information AND access to actual news.
Yes, we now have access to these former WaPo (and NBC/ CBS, etc.) journalists on Substack, but most are forced to move into commentary. It's the journalism that's missing, because journalism is expensive to produce, time consuming, and generally involves more than just one intrepid reporter acting solo. The "independent journalists" I subscribe to are tremendous writers and I value their analysis. But they (generally, with a few notable exceptions) aren't breaking news by delivering scoops, etc. Maybe I'm especially cranky because the Post was my hometown paper for 50 years (I'm including my parents' subscriptions growing up in DC). It all just seems dangerous.
Bezos months ago leaked that he wanted to expand the subscriber base by an obscene multiple. This effort was bound to fail. Though he didn't have to be so vulgar in cutting back: https://x.com/lizziejohnsonnn/status/2019083204133609846 "I was just laid off by The Washington Post in the middle of a warzone. I have no words. I'm devastated."
Think of the news consumer. The best news product in the S.F. Bay Area right now is oddly, one that got a bad rap by the pre-internet legacy journalists : the East Bay Times/S.J. Mercury News/Marin I.J. It (the physical product) has a great page two, has just enough local news, curated wire stories to fill in national, arts reviews and has finishability with puzzles and comics to habituate young readers for a lifetime habit. Yesterday's edition even had poetry by state youth laureates.
But few people get the physical product. We need to acknowledge online news consumption is rarely a premium experience.
The first part of this reminds me of something I read a few weeks ago from Matthew B Crawford, a concept he calls "alien ownership"
"...in which an enterprise is controlled by parties who have no history with, and no special sympathy for, the product or service that the firm exists to provide -- no emotional or intellectual investment in the craft of it." (https://mcrawford.substack.com/p/craftsmanship-in-the-culture-industry)
Bad Company is on my list. This is the private equity driven world. So grossly out of touch with the craft and the things themselves. And they like it that way no doubt. Easier to be bloodless when the people with the most skin in the game aren't in the building.
Can journalists better explain their value in a way that builds broad public support? I don’t mean individual subscriptions, which are not enough to sustain the infrastructure journalism depends on.
I’ve wondered if AB 886 (2023-24) California Journalism Preservation Act might have survived if its coalition hadn’t been so narrow. To me, the bill wasn’t just about helping news outlets; it was about protecting the public’s right to accountability and fairness for journalists as workers. But outside the media industry itself, California Labor Federation and Consumer Federation of California among the few supporters.
By contrast, successful labor bills AB 1 (2023) Legislature Employer-Employee Relations Act and SB 62 (2021) Garment Worker Protection Act drew broad backing from social justice and environmental orgs, and others.
It’s easy to blame politicians, billionaires, or Big Tech for the collapse of the news industry. They’re largely immune to such pressure. Can journalists mobilize the advocacy groups and community organizers who rely on their reporting to hold power accountable, and turn that shared dependence into a political force?
This piece captures somethng really profound about newsroom layoffs. The distinction between private equity's spreadsheet-driven cuts and billionaire-owned media is key; with PE its abstract financial enginering, but when Bezos unplugs the jukebox its this weird personification that makes the pain more visible. I've worked in adjacent fields and watched that protective newsroom environment dissolve, and the shift toward being more business-minded or hobbyist feels precarious.
I agree with all of this. And just want to add that when these legacy institutions fold like an origami swan, the public loses a trusted source of information AND access to actual news.
Yes, we now have access to these former WaPo (and NBC/ CBS, etc.) journalists on Substack, but most are forced to move into commentary. It's the journalism that's missing, because journalism is expensive to produce, time consuming, and generally involves more than just one intrepid reporter acting solo. The "independent journalists" I subscribe to are tremendous writers and I value their analysis. But they (generally, with a few notable exceptions) aren't breaking news by delivering scoops, etc. Maybe I'm especially cranky because the Post was my hometown paper for 50 years (I'm including my parents' subscriptions growing up in DC). It all just seems dangerous.
Bezos months ago leaked that he wanted to expand the subscriber base by an obscene multiple. This effort was bound to fail. Though he didn't have to be so vulgar in cutting back: https://x.com/lizziejohnsonnn/status/2019083204133609846 "I was just laid off by The Washington Post in the middle of a warzone. I have no words. I'm devastated."
Think of the news consumer. The best news product in the S.F. Bay Area right now is oddly, one that got a bad rap by the pre-internet legacy journalists : the East Bay Times/S.J. Mercury News/Marin I.J. It (the physical product) has a great page two, has just enough local news, curated wire stories to fill in national, arts reviews and has finishability with puzzles and comics to habituate young readers for a lifetime habit. Yesterday's edition even had poetry by state youth laureates.
But few people get the physical product. We need to acknowledge online news consumption is rarely a premium experience.
The first part of this reminds me of something I read a few weeks ago from Matthew B Crawford, a concept he calls "alien ownership"
"...in which an enterprise is controlled by parties who have no history with, and no special sympathy for, the product or service that the firm exists to provide -- no emotional or intellectual investment in the craft of it." (https://mcrawford.substack.com/p/craftsmanship-in-the-culture-industry)
Bad Company is on my list. This is the private equity driven world. So grossly out of touch with the craft and the things themselves. And they like it that way no doubt. Easier to be bloodless when the people with the most skin in the game aren't in the building.
Can journalists better explain their value in a way that builds broad public support? I don’t mean individual subscriptions, which are not enough to sustain the infrastructure journalism depends on.
I’ve wondered if AB 886 (2023-24) California Journalism Preservation Act might have survived if its coalition hadn’t been so narrow. To me, the bill wasn’t just about helping news outlets; it was about protecting the public’s right to accountability and fairness for journalists as workers. But outside the media industry itself, California Labor Federation and Consumer Federation of California among the few supporters.
By contrast, successful labor bills AB 1 (2023) Legislature Employer-Employee Relations Act and SB 62 (2021) Garment Worker Protection Act drew broad backing from social justice and environmental orgs, and others.
It’s easy to blame politicians, billionaires, or Big Tech for the collapse of the news industry. They’re largely immune to such pressure. Can journalists mobilize the advocacy groups and community organizers who rely on their reporting to hold power accountable, and turn that shared dependence into a political force?
AB 886 supporters and opponents: https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202320240ab886
CalMatters’ recent update: Newsom plans no new journalism funding despite $175 million funding deal with Google https://calmatters.org/politics/2026/01/gavin-newsom-google-journalism-funding-deal/
AB 1 supporters (no opponent): https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202320240ab1
SB 62 supporters and opponents in “09/08/21- Senate Floor Analyses” https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billAnalysisClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB62
This piece captures somethng really profound about newsroom layoffs. The distinction between private equity's spreadsheet-driven cuts and billionaire-owned media is key; with PE its abstract financial enginering, but when Bezos unplugs the jukebox its this weird personification that makes the pain more visible. I've worked in adjacent fields and watched that protective newsroom environment dissolve, and the shift toward being more business-minded or hobbyist feels precarious.