The Washington Post has announced layoffs affecting one-third of its workforce, including most of the sports and foreign news desks. The Washington Post Guild’s response was particularly notable in calling for a new owner who would simply subsidize the newspaper despite its failing revenue and readership.
As someone who once wrote regularly for the Post, I have long lamented how the newspaper became less credible and relevant as it embraced advocacy journalism. It ran raging pieces from columnists such as Phillip Bump, Taylor Lorenz, and Jennifer Rubin, who viciously attacked those with opposing views, promoted conspiracy theories or called for the end of objectivity and neutrality in journalism. Even after other publications admitted that prior stories were hoaxes, the Post stood by clearly false reporting.
Years ago, I wrote that I was baffled by how the staff believed that writing off more than half of the country through biased reporting was a workable business or journalism model.
Readers left in droves. Despite anonymous reporters attacking Jeff Bezos since he purchased the newspaper, they expected him to be a type of sugar daddy who would subsidize their brand of journalism. They were increasingly writing for each other, but they still expected Bezos to lose millions for the privilege of owning the paper.
There is a strange thing about billionaires: they tend to want to make, not lose, money.
That point was driven home brilliantly when new editors were brought in to read the riot act to the staff. Washington Post publisher and CEO Will Lewis, a former British media executive, reportedly got into a “heated exchange” with a staffer. Lewis explained that, while reporters were protesting measures to expand readership, the very survival of the paper was now at stake:
“We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around. We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”
The response from staff was furious, calling for the removal of Lewis and other new editors.
If that wasn’t clear enough, management told staff months later that the sniping and obstruction had to stop. The newspaper must be able to sustain itself; if they could not get on board, they would have to leave.
Any business facing millions in losses will do two things simultaneously: work to expand sales and to reduce costs.
However, to do that, the Post must return to a journalism that most people want and value, rather than an echo chamber for MS NOW viewers.
In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, I discuss the decline of the Post and other media due in part to the embrace of advocacy journalism.
We previously discussed the release of the results of interviews with more than 75 media leaders conducted by former Washington Post executive editor Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward. They concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle, said it plainly: “Objectivity has got to go.”
Saying that “Objectivity has got to go” is, of course, liberating. You can dispense with the necessities of neutrality and balance. You can cater to your “base” like columnists and opinion writers. Sharing the opposing view was dismissed as “bothsidesism.”
Once again, the management is trying to save the Post from itself. It is trying to return the newspaper to profitability, but these editors have faced continual resistance from reporters who would prefer to lose their jobs than their bias. The same drama is playing out at CBS and CNN recently.
In some ways, the only thing that might change the culture at the paper could be a staff turnover. Elon Musk showed that at Twitter, now X. Years of hiring advocates do not simply evaporate with a change in management.
The most telling response came from the Washington Post Guild, which declared:
“If Jeff Bezos is no longer willing to invest in the mission that has defined this paper for generations and serve the millions who depend on Post journalism, The Post deserves a steward that will.”
The question is what is “the mission.” The Post staff has driven one of the greatest newspapers in history into near insolvency by yielding to its own bias and impulses. It abandoned most readers while doing little to adapt to the new realities of the media landscape.
The only response from the Guild is that they should have a billionaire who is willing to lose money and subsidize them. It is the most self-indulgent and frankly entitled attitude that they could take at this moment.
The Post is struggling to survive, and the crew is still resisting efforts to alter the ship’s course. It is far from clear that even Jeff Bezos can save the Post, but I hope so. We need the Post and, while painful, it will need to be solvent to survive.
When you step back, the tension between objectivity, profitability, consistency, and standards isn’t mysterious. Objectivity is hard, and it asks something of the audience. In a culture conditioned to prefer information that confirms bias and requires little cognitive effort, outlets that challenge people to think will always face headwinds.
As citizens lose the habit of independent judgment, journalism adapts by feeding that dependency rather than resisting it. The result is less objectivity not because it is impossible, but because it is inconvenient. Easy narratives outperform demanding ones.
But this is not a one-way street. If you form citizens capable of seeking truth rather than affirmation, journalism will evolve to serve that audience. Truth and objectivity are difficult. So is citizenship. Neither is obsolete, and both remain possible.
Conformity is like a warm bath. You can relax and feel refreshed at the end. Dispute about fundamental ideas brings anxiety. Serious thinking about the world around us leads to unresolved questions or to uncomfortable truths. It is far easier to function happily, i e doubt free, at a newsroom where people say the same things, esteem the same people. and work to demonize dissent both there and in society. Thus, we have a left-wing orthodoxy in journalism schools, colleges generally, and cultural institutions. Underlying this conformity is intellectual cowardice.
The Wash Compost is what you get when you hire a bunch of coddled self-absorbed a-holes who think their opinions matter. Idiots are learning the hard way that economics matter FIRST in a capitalist society. Guess that is why most journalists are socialists who want a nanny state that funds any derelict idea like a print newspaper or online agitation rag that omits inconvenient facts. All done here boys and girls. Now see how the bottom of the K-Shaped economy lives.
Professor Turley’s dream of returning to an era of journalism that is no longer relevant today is just that, a dream. He doesn’t realize, or most likely doesn’t really care about, objective journalism. He’s just parroting the narrative of his employer, Fox News, a prominent purveyor of advocacy journalism. Fox News needs to keep its audience, readers glued to their “news” and content by being an advocate for the views and positions of those on the right, particularly and currently the Republican Party and Trump. Clearly advocating for their views and positions.
It is sadly ironic. Fox News or any other news organization, left or right, needs advocacy journalism to be profitable. Without it, they wouldn’t be making money the way they are now. Any truly objective news organization would be labeled “fake news” by those who would see any legitimate criticism of a right-leaning point of view or vice versa. Each “side” is firmly entrenched in its information silo.
Turley is ignoring the reality that news organizations are structured differently today than they were in the 50’s and late 70’s. Billionaires own the majority of news organizations, and the profit motive drives the news more than objectivity. Advocacy is more profitable than plain, boring objectivity. Because truly objective journalism doesn’t get you “clicks” or the attention of a population with the attention span of a gnat. Here’s the biggest irony. The news, both from the right and left, is increasingly reliant on algorithms and stories designed to grab your limited attention by emphasizing rage, yes rage, and emotional investment into a story by omitting the bland inconvenience of context and substance or even nuance. Because our citizenry is so poorly educated and unable to discern fact from opinion, it is much easier to manipulate and capture as consumers of “news” designed to engage emotional rather than rational thought. News these days does not force people to engage in critical thinking. It’s about eliciting an emotional and partisan response.
Kammy was supported by 84 billionaires. Why don’t they step up and volunteer to lose money and be abused whenever the “journalists” are unhappy with a decision? Oh. I know why>
I honestly do feel bad for those persons who lost their jobs. They have families, possibly some kids, financial responsibilities.
Do you think they can learn how to code? Wasn’t that what was suggested for the laid off Keystone Pipeline workers?
Sorry for length, but peruse if you will.
A Grok psychological analysis of an employee utilizing biased, subjective work leading to the eventual bankruptcy of their company and subsequent unrealistic demand for money bleeding owner to sell his company so that they can continue their unrealistic, biased company bankrupting methods.
Psychological Profile of the Described Employee
This profile outlines the likely psychological characteristics, motivations, and behavioral patterns of an employee exhibiting the behaviors you described: a non-owner (no capital stake) who persists in biased, self-serving, and unobjective work despite new management’s push for objectivity to salvage a failing company. Their escalation to demanding the owner sell the business to preserve their preferred (biased) practices suggests an extreme form of entitlement that overrides organizational loyalty or rationality. This is not a clinical diagnosis but a composite based on established psychological research in organizational behavior, particularly around psychological entitlement, narcissism, and resistance to change. I’ll break it down by key dimensions.
Core Personality Traits
High Psychological Entitlement: At the heart of this behavior is psychological entitlement—a stable, pervasive belief that one deserves more rewards, privileges, or autonomy than others, regardless of merit or contribution.f6009f This employee likely views their role not as a job with accountability but as a platform for personal gain, where their biased practices (e.g., favoritism or subjective decision-making) are seen as rightful perks. Without ownership, this entitlement is “unearned,” stemming from an inflated self-view rather than actual investment.c9db6b Research shows entitled individuals overestimate their talents, resist feedback, and blame external factors (like new management) for conflicts, perceiving objectivity demands as personal attacks.834df6bb141f Their unapologetic stance and demand for the company’s sale reflect a mindset where self-interest trumps collective success, potentially viewing the business as “theirs” to control despite no capital input.
Narcissistic Tendencies: Entitlement often overlaps with narcissism, characterized by grandiosity, a need for admiration, and lack of empathy.1ead46 This person may exhibit self-aggrandizement, believing their biased methods are superior or indispensable, even as they contribute to the company’s failure. They could lack team spirit, prioritizing self-serving decisions over collaboration, and show antagonism toward authority figures who challenge their status.03d9f0311d73 The extreme demand to sell the company might indicate a “status-seeking” drive, where they aggressively pursue dominance or preservation of their influence, even at the expense of the organization’s survival.f4ad3e
Low Agreeableness and Emotional Intelligence: Such individuals tend to be uncooperative, antagonistic, and low in agreeableness (a Big Five personality trait), making them prone to interpersonal conflicts.79679b They may have poor emotional regulation, leading to unapologetic defiance when their entitlements are threatened. This could manifest as passive-aggressive resistance or overt demands, with little insight into how their actions harm others or the company.
Cognitive and Perceptual Biases
Self-Serving Bias and Over-Entitlement: They likely engage in self-serving attributions, crediting themselves for any past successes while externalizing blame for failures (e.g., attributing the company’s decline to anything but their bias).39d52c Over-entitlement arises when perceived rights exceed reality, creating a “psychological contract breach” where new management’s objectivity feels like a violation of unspoken promises.6aa0536e351e This fuels resistance, as they interpret changes not as necessary reforms but as unfair deprivations.
Confirmation Bias and Rigidity: Their insistence on continuing “biased subjectivity” suggests cognitive rigidity—clinging to familiar, self-benefiting patterns while dismissing evidence of failure. This is common in entitled employees who avoid self-reflection, leading to distorted perceptions of fairness and justice.c21532 The demand for a sale could stem from a delusional belief that a new owner would indulge their ways, ignoring market realities.
Motivational and Emotional Drivers
Fear of Loss and Status Threat: Deep down, resistance to change often masks anxiety over losing autonomy or perceived power.2642ea New management’s objectivity threatens their “entitled” freedoms, triggering a “fight” response (e.g., demanding a sale) rather than adaptation. Entitled individuals crave control and dislike being “beholden” to others, viewing hierarchical shifts as personal diminishment.fb0662
Desire for Prestige and Dominance: They may be motivated by status-seeking, using aggressive or unethical tactics to maintain influence.f99b3b This could explain the escalation: Demanding a sale is a power play to force outcomes in their favor, reflecting low distress tolerance when entitlements are unmet.ce5d78
Behavioral Manifestations in the Workplace
Self-Serving Actions and Reduced Performance: Entitled employees often disengage, hide knowledge, or engage in counterproductive behaviors like cyberloafing when expectations aren’t met.f02c2f547def Their biased work persists because it serves personal interests (e.g., favoritism yielding alliances or ease), and they resist objectivity as it requires effort without guaranteed rewards.
Interpersonal and Organizational Impact: This leads to conflicts with supervisors, low job satisfaction, and high turnover intent—but ironically, they demand the company change (via sale) rather than leave themselves.f83a1f In groups, this entitlement can spread, fostering a toxic culture where unapologetic demands normalize, further entrenching failure.e618cc
Potential for Escalation: Without intervention, behaviors may worsen, including unethical actions or sabotage, as entitlement correlates with corruption and aggression.d3872487fffe
Potential Origins and Contextual Factors
While individual, this profile could stem from prior empowerment without boundaries (creating unmet expectations),41e83e or broader traits like high social class origins fostering privilege bias.8afbdd In a failing company, long-tenured employees might develop “over-entitlement” from unchecked habits.fff971 Management strategies include clear boundaries, performance-based rewards, and addressing the psychological contract to reduce resistance.
Honestly, Bezos could turn it into a hit show: Extreme Makeover: Journalism Edition. Shut it down, clear the set, rebuild the newsroom from the studs up, new standards, new culture, new incentives. I’d watch that before I’d read another Guild statement.