I can't see where the article defines how it measures "productivity". Is it just words produced per hour?
Journalism is, I imagine, much like programming: a lot of the words are "boilerplate" and cheap to produce, but those aren't the important parts of a story. Some of the words require a lot of work. Getting a direct quote from a relevant person. Doing the deep research to expose a claim as false instead of blindly parroting it. Getting multiple sources to voice contrasting views on a topic. Fact checking an article before publication.
I worry that whatever their definition of "productivity" is, it ignores these important yet time consuming aspects, and as such, what looks like "increased productivity" in their metrics is really just a decrease in quality.
Jeffy wants to have his cake and eat it, too; a propaganda apparatus that turns a profit. The obvious solution would be to not own a spin machine if it's not turning a profit if you're looking to make money. But of course that would leave him without a mouthpiece.
I also wonder how much having his name attached to the thing is responsible for the awful balance sheet ca 2024. It may never turn a profit as long as it's a known Bezos operation.
The WP reportedly lost $100m in 2024. So one the one hand, you might understand Bezos wanting things to change. On the other hand, Blue Origin reportedly loses multiple billions of $ per year, and has done for decades, which Bezos pumps in without insisting on massive cuts or layoffs.
There's an obvious difference between the two in that Blue Origin is the gateway to multibillion dollar prospective markets that current have virtually no incumbents (other than one very big obvious one). Whereas the WP does not have any prospective future growth trajectory whatsoever b/c it's competing with the endless turd spigot that is social media.
> The WP reportedly lost $100m in 2024. So one the one hand, you might understand Bezos wanting things to change.
You don't even "might understand" this, because you're intelligent enough to grasp that its profitability as a newspaper was never a factor in Bezos' desire to purchase the WP.
There is quite a bit of difference between not making a profit and consistently losing around $100m a year with apparently no path to at least revenue neutrality.
So it loses pocket change for a multi billionaire?
Edit: The consideration being that perhaps billionaire toys need not be profitable per se, but are purchased for different reasons. Twitter is another example here.
Rich businessmen have expensive hobbies, and those can look a lot like real businesses. Jeff could also buy a couple oceanographic research vessels tomorrow, spend a few years looking for sunken Spanish treasure ships, then get bored and sell the whole "business" in a liquidation auction.
Yes, Jeff and his companies keep making idealistic, pro-social statements. Unfortunately, such statements are little more than socially mandated lies. Which millions of people really want to believe - so be cautious about calling them out.
It's noblesse oblige, or rather an example of the end of noblesse oblige, that the super rich don't even have to pretend to do things for others any more. Which, I would suggest, is a short-sighted and ultimately hubristicaly stupid change...
It is explicitly that now. Bezos policy change back in 2025: "Billionaire Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos is directing the paper’s opinion section to focus on “personal liberties and free markets,” he announced Wednesday, leading to editorial page editor David Shipley’s resignation."[1]
> It is explicitly that now. Bezos policy change back in 2025: "Billionaire Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos is directing the paper’s opinion section to focus on “personal liberties and free markets"
That's about as uncharitable a take as you can possibly get. Bezos pushed the paper's editorial slant toward libertarian, and Shipley didn't like it, because it didn't fit his own political ideals. You could just as easily say Shipley was propagandizing a different philosophy before the change, it wasn't selling to the paper's target audience, and Bezos fixed the problem.
Regardless, editorial writers do not have a deity-given right to espouse their political opinions while collecting a paycheck -- particularly when their opinions aren't selling product. This goes all the way back to the very first news broadsheets. Throughout US history, newspapers have switched political philosophy as business needs dictated.
> Jeff Bezos wants Washington Post’s newsroom budget halved, productivity doubled
Sort of like Moore's Law. If he can do that every 18 months then in a few decades the newsroom will really fly! News flash: it doesn't work like that. :(
What's the end goal here? Subscribers are leaving in droves and there's seemingly no appetite elsewhere for what Bezos is offering. If it's about influence I would counter by saying there's none in what isn't getting read.
Why doesn't he sell while he can still get something for it? Continuing the trajectory it has been on in the last two years will mean shuddering the paper or turning it into X hoping some users will switch.
The big problem is that the greedy TechBros want to
influence legislation and politics. Right now there
is an orange TechBro in charge, so the oligarch
mafia will succeed (aside from their own intrinsic
stupidity) - but eventually voters in the USA need
to decide whether they really want the superrich
to pull all strings on the puppet.
Maybe the subscribers of the Post? They (reportedly) left in droves after Bezos interfered to stop the opinion board from endorsing a candidate and more recently fired nearly all international reporters. (including those in warzones)
He owns the paper and can do what he wants within the bounds of the law, but anyone is also free to criticize the decisions he makes, and subscribers are free to unsubscribe.
Criticism is about what someone ought to do, not what they can do. (these are very different)
Obviously his strategy with WA post seems to be working (for him and his ventures). He secured contracts both for AWS and Blue Origin from a seemingly hostile gov. Even if everyone unsubscribes and journalists leave, it was still a good investment.
So the shareholders of Amazon are happy. He did the right thing.
Was it moral or good for the American republic? Again, he is not an elected official so it doesn’t matter. We opted to give him so much unchecked power.
https://archive.ph/jDX3O
I can't see where the article defines how it measures "productivity". Is it just words produced per hour?
Journalism is, I imagine, much like programming: a lot of the words are "boilerplate" and cheap to produce, but those aren't the important parts of a story. Some of the words require a lot of work. Getting a direct quote from a relevant person. Doing the deep research to expose a claim as false instead of blindly parroting it. Getting multiple sources to voice contrasting views on a topic. Fact checking an article before publication.
I worry that whatever their definition of "productivity" is, it ignores these important yet time consuming aspects, and as such, what looks like "increased productivity" in their metrics is really just a decrease in quality.
LOC equivalent of the news!
Yea we should simply get more done with less money, why didn't I think of that? Dude's a genius
Maybe if we halved his budget he could be twice as productive too. Could you imagine? We could call it financial intermittent fasting
Jeffy wants to have his cake and eat it, too; a propaganda apparatus that turns a profit. The obvious solution would be to not own a spin machine if it's not turning a profit if you're looking to make money. But of course that would leave him without a mouthpiece.
I also wonder how much having his name attached to the thing is responsible for the awful balance sheet ca 2024. It may never turn a profit as long as it's a known Bezos operation.
The WP reportedly lost $100m in 2024. So one the one hand, you might understand Bezos wanting things to change. On the other hand, Blue Origin reportedly loses multiple billions of $ per year, and has done for decades, which Bezos pumps in without insisting on massive cuts or layoffs.
There's an obvious difference between the two in that Blue Origin is the gateway to multibillion dollar prospective markets that current have virtually no incumbents (other than one very big obvious one). Whereas the WP does not have any prospective future growth trajectory whatsoever b/c it's competing with the endless turd spigot that is social media.
> The WP reportedly lost $100m in 2024. So one the one hand, you might understand Bezos wanting things to change.
You don't even "might understand" this, because you're intelligent enough to grasp that its profitability as a newspaper was never a factor in Bezos' desire to purchase the WP.
There is quite a bit of difference between not making a profit and consistently losing around $100m a year with apparently no path to at least revenue neutrality.
So it loses pocket change for a multi billionaire?
Edit: The consideration being that perhaps billionaire toys need not be profitable per se, but are purchased for different reasons. Twitter is another example here.
A $100m here, a $100m there, pretty soon, you're talking real money.
Yeah, he could only keep this going for another 2600 years
WP used to be left leaning, and with bezos the move has gone right. So naturally all readers move on to some other medium. Business 101
That's about 3 years of his boat's upkeep, regardless if it goes anywhere or not.
About the same as Bezos invested in the Melania documentary, watched by about six people.
Rich businessmen have expensive hobbies, and those can look a lot like real businesses. Jeff could also buy a couple oceanographic research vessels tomorrow, spend a few years looking for sunken Spanish treasure ships, then get bored and sell the whole "business" in a liquidation auction.
Yes, Jeff and his companies keep making idealistic, pro-social statements. Unfortunately, such statements are little more than socially mandated lies. Which millions of people really want to believe - so be cautious about calling them out.
Blue Origin in theory could make money some day. WP definitely not
I'm sure he didn't bought the WaPo to make a profit. More like to have an influence.
It's noblesse oblige, or rather an example of the end of noblesse oblige, that the super rich don't even have to pretend to do things for others any more. Which, I would suggest, is a short-sighted and ultimately hubristicaly stupid change...
And influence he got. Gutting it was an act of influence and carried the message he wanted to carry across quite perfectly
His reason for buying it has been right there in front of us all along: Democracy Dies In Darkenss
It's just like "To Serve Man".
This is absurdly pedantic, but the fact that the Twilight Zone episode relies on a pun makes the two phrases somewhat different.
They would be alike if the book title had been "If Mankind isn't at the Table, Mankind is on the Menu"
Washington Post opinion section is just garbage. I would call it propaganda section.
It is explicitly that now. Bezos policy change back in 2025: "Billionaire Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos is directing the paper’s opinion section to focus on “personal liberties and free markets,” he announced Wednesday, leading to editorial page editor David Shipley’s resignation."[1]
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/26/jeff-bezos-washingt...
> It is explicitly that now. Bezos policy change back in 2025: "Billionaire Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos is directing the paper’s opinion section to focus on “personal liberties and free markets"
That's about as uncharitable a take as you can possibly get. Bezos pushed the paper's editorial slant toward libertarian, and Shipley didn't like it, because it didn't fit his own political ideals. You could just as easily say Shipley was propagandizing a different philosophy before the change, it wasn't selling to the paper's target audience, and Bezos fixed the problem.
Regardless, editorial writers do not have a deity-given right to espouse their political opinions while collecting a paycheck -- particularly when their opinions aren't selling product. This goes all the way back to the very first news broadsheets. Throughout US history, newspapers have switched political philosophy as business needs dictated.
No, the opinion section was absolutely not pushed towards libertarianism.
Have you read it recently?
Yes.
Libertarianism is just an euphemism for "authoritarian righ-wing, but dont want to admit it out loud" in most cases.
by now [1], yes. but in my experience not a very popular view on HN. expect downvotes.
[1] i find peter thiel's speech at libertopia in 2010 a great early reflection of that shift: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgH7Lv2gQdk
I like that you say that the opinion you quoted is uncharitable and then agree with it.
>Bezos pushed the paper's editorial slant toward libertarian
It was nothing but left wing propaganda before he bought it
> Jeff Bezos wants Washington Post’s newsroom budget halved, productivity doubled
Sort of like Moore's Law. If he can do that every 18 months then in a few decades the newsroom will really fly! News flash: it doesn't work like that. :(
What's the end goal here? Subscribers are leaving in droves and there's seemingly no appetite elsewhere for what Bezos is offering. If it's about influence I would counter by saying there's none in what isn't getting read.
Why doesn't he sell while he can still get something for it? Continuing the trajectory it has been on in the last two years will mean shuddering the paper or turning it into X hoping some users will switch.
Fuck bezos and the rest of the oligarchs.
half budget
double productivity
4 x 'value'
so he wants AI written slop
i hope this ends badly
More with less, huh?
The big problem is that the greedy TechBros want to influence legislation and politics. Right now there is an orange TechBro in charge, so the oligarch mafia will succeed (aside from their own intrinsic stupidity) - but eventually voters in the USA need to decide whether they really want the superrich to pull all strings on the puppet.
It's the economy, s.....
The last year it has really gone down hill — hard. Reporting is mediocre, photojournalism is forgettable, and the opinion section is absolute garbage.
There’s a typo in the headline. “ended”, not “upended”
He is a billionaire he owns the paper he can do whatever he wants with it. Who cares anyway today about newspapers and tv.
Public opinion is shaped by social media.
> Who cares anyway today about newspapers and tv
Maybe the subscribers of the Post? They (reportedly) left in droves after Bezos interfered to stop the opinion board from endorsing a candidate and more recently fired nearly all international reporters. (including those in warzones)
He owns the paper and can do what he wants within the bounds of the law, but anyone is also free to criticize the decisions he makes, and subscribers are free to unsubscribe.
Criticism is about what someone ought to do, not what they can do. (these are very different)
Obviously his strategy with WA post seems to be working (for him and his ventures). He secured contracts both for AWS and Blue Origin from a seemingly hostile gov. Even if everyone unsubscribes and journalists leave, it was still a good investment.
So the shareholders of Amazon are happy. He did the right thing.
Was it moral or good for the American republic? Again, he is not an elected official so it doesn’t matter. We opted to give him so much unchecked power.