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.
I was about to write this yesterday, but I ran out of time: The new brand of atheism has much to do with the fanaticism of the far left. They have become what they despise most about their primary targets, fundamentalists or evangelicals. They are on a mission to convert the world to their sect. They insist they do not believe in Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any god, which is silly. They worship no-god with all the fiery devotion they condemn in believers and they aim to silence and rid the world of this evil. They intend to destroy Christians, Christianity, and the reliability, the accuracy and relevance of the Scriptures, with every resource they can find.
Their influence has drawn a line in the sand, a sacred demarcation and they fight over it 24/7.
Turley asks : The question is what is “the mission.”
The “mission” is crystal clear under Bezos.
It is printed on the top of the front page every day, “Democracy Dies in Darkness”
It used to their motto.
Under Bezos it is now a “Mission Statement”.
They are out to prove it.
The NYTs is right behind them, but they have no clue. Perish the though they take a gander in the mirror to see if they run on bias. They will be adamant. Far be it from me!
As those advertising dollars and revenue from street sales and subscriptions dry up.
Yahoo! Jeff Bozo and the creeps at The Washington Poos are getting (at least a bit of) what they deserve. Is there an emoticon for mooning?
What do they deserve? And why?
As ye write, so shall ye reap
In the words of The Great One, Mark Levin: The Washington ComPost.
This is nothing new; this column could easily have been written five or ten years ago. The reason the owners cannot solve the problem is that they have misdiagnosed the malady. Yes, it’s liberalism at its core, but that only tells us the proximate cause, not the entire cause or how it came to be. The root cause is that liberalism has become a non-sectarian, secular religion in this country (and, might I say, most of Europe).
Like all religions, liberals believe they have the one true god of all things left, including socialism, Marxism, communism, and just about anything that is not capitalism. And while the West has made great progress in reaching peaceful coexistence among its Christian sects since the Reformation, those of the liberal sect, by comparison, are warring with one another and anyone outside their distinct cell of belief.
The rest of us, that is, the vast majority of the American people who are not liberal, are viewed as the secular equivalent of Satan, e.g., Gestapo, Nazis, murderers, etc. We supply the fuel for their fervor, and they, in turn, do not disappoint us with their performances. As for converting them to us or us to them, it’s pretty hopeless because our gods are not theirs and theirs are not ours.
As they lose their scriptural surrogates, such as The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC (or whatever), they may begin to question their faith, which, after all, is nothing more than a mixture of self-loathing, hatred for those who are not them, and, of course, TDS. The latter, more than anything else, provides the ontological proof of what they believe, confirming that their god is real and their cause is right. But a faith built on hate cannot last long in a society like ours that favors truth and justice and, above all, love for our country and our fellow Americans.
You’re right jjc, to distinguish between proximate cause and root cause, and it’s fair to call what we’re seeing a religious mindset, even if it isn’t a traditional one. Once journalism abandons shared, external standards and replaces them with moral certainty, disagreement becomes heresy and dissenters become moral enemies rather than people arguing over facts or interpretations.
That’s why owners struggle to “fix” it. You can adjust incentives and impose standards, but you can’t reason someone out of a belief system that no longer sees itself as accountable to truth outside its own worldview. At that point, economics does what persuasion and argument cannot.
Olly: You are 100% correct. The free market does not value or condone the tactics of the left. Because of this, the left turns to known but useless alternatives like socialism and Marxism. But these “tax-the-rich” solutions provide nothing beyond the short, very short, term. They just give the man a fish.
I’d go even further. Fishing predates being handed a fish. It’s the natural state. Being given a fish is the unnatural condition. Journalism that equips people to think mirrors how humans have always survived and learned. Journalism that hands down conclusions trains dependency. And dependency never sustains trust, skill, or a healthy marketplace.
Religious mindset? Come on. If you have to go that far to analyze the “problem” you’re not really analyzing, you’re diving into conspiracy theory.
News organizations have always had a liberal bent or bias because it revolves around not only reporting facts, but also perspectives, context, and nuances. That requires an open mind and, ironically, an objective one. Sadly, Fox News, which was created to “counter” the liberal view that often permeates serious journalism, started engaging in advocacy journalism to emphasize the conservative view of things by denigrating the rest as “liberal media.” Instead of actively competing as a truly objective journalism outlet, they chose advocacy journalism. It’s an open secret that Fox News is an advocate for the Republican Party. It…religiously peddles the Republican party’s narrative to it’s mostly conservative audience. Hence, their reliance on advocacy journalism.
I mean, come on. Fox News has had its fair share of obvious manipulation of news stories and fabricating photos to fit the narrative they want to push. Sometimes, it is so embarrassingly obvious that they are forced to either retract or admit they made a “mistake”.
Now, to be clear, this is in no way saying liberal news or left-leaning News organizations do not engage in advocacy journalism; they do. Just not as much as the right-leaning media wants you to believe. But it is undoubtedly there. Because Fox News does it, others are forced to engage in the practice. Objective journalism would be dismissed as “fake news” by audiences already brainwashed by the right and left’s advocacy journalism.
Back in the Founding Era, most newspapers were explicitly political. They often had Republican or Democrat in their names. The notion that media should be “objective” dates from the broadcast era, where laws required fairness. We are slowly but surely going back to the standards of 200 years ago. All news sources will be explicitly political.
Andrew: Thank you for that. You are correct in your historical observation of the founders and what the print news of that time was like. We have come a long ways since then and I would hope that the progress was positive. The Internet has often been compared with the printing press for expanding our ability to develop and share data. By its very nature ideological media cannot survive long in an era where truth is accessible through the smart phone in your pocket. The big question that remains is, can Post writers like Phillip Bump, Taylor Lorenz, and Jennifer Rubin survive today and adapt, or will they go the way of the dinosaurs? Lastly, the Internet is not always a preferable source for the truth but it is an alternate source and that gives all of us an opportunity to find the truth.
“We have come a long ways since then and I would hope that the progress was positive.”
Maybe. Your speculation on a positive impact from the internet may prove accurate over the long term. But progress in printed news beyond partisanship and sensationalism over the first 200 years of this nation, not so much. The Enquirer used to have a reputation as the most ludicrous scandal and sensationalist rag out there, but it never lacked for competition. In 1979 I was briefly involved in the newspaper distribution racket (I use that term deliberately, but will not go into details in this post). I dropped off bundles of various papers on street corners at ~4 AM to be picked up by newsboys who were to roll them up for delivery to homes. One of the papers I dropped was the Philadelphia Journal, a rag known to those of us in the business (and possibly to others) as the “Philly Urinal”. The Enquirer had nothing on the Urinal when it came to lurid headlines and content masquerading as important news. One banner headline I recall particularly well took up the entire top third of the front page. “TEACHER KILLED BY NAIL THROUGH HEAD” it shouted, along with a grisly photograph that it claimed was a close up of the teacher’s head, but which I suspect was some kind of darkroom manipulation, akin to Photo-shopping.
Didn’t Republicans oppose the fairnes doctrine? If Professor Turley is really serious about objectivity something like the fairness doctrine could be a solution.
X: Thank you for your comment. I was trying to giver an objective and structural analysis because when you personalize it as this person or channel is advocacy and this one is not, the diagnostic factor is diminished. These are what I called or referred to as the proximate causes that you described quite well..
How can the paper be failing, it won the Pulitzer Prize?
It was “awarded”. One does not win the PP.
Let’s just give Baghdad Bob a Pulitzer and call it a day. The Pulitzer is an insult at this point.
“The Pulitzer is an insult at this point.”
Unfortunately, that is true of nearly every award that was once considered to be a positive hallmark of our culture. I won’t go into the list, I’m sure you know it all too well.
it’s not failing, it’s going through some turmoil as most organizations do when new management wants to radically shake things up.
The WaPo ‘advocacy journalists’ obviously hew to Marx’s adage ‘from each according to their ability, to each according to their need’, taking from Mr. Bezos, as they are no longer capable of generating journalism of value.
Journalism for cultural Marxists. About as successful a model as the Soviet Union, Cuba, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia 🙄
Hew or new?
Sounds like the staff has been operating The Post as a non-profit with Bezos as its sole source of funding.
And now they are learning a real world lesson.
Business is so much easier if you don’t have to earn money.
That makes zero sense. Obviously you never ran a business.
Sarcasm is hard to detect sometimes.
Kristin Oren,
I was tracking you, re: sarcasm.
This highlights the problem with subsidies in general. Once begun they are very difficult to remove.
Fox News rarely if ever produces journalism that can be classified as truly objective. Its core audience has been conditioned over many years to regard Fox News’s format as the standard of credibility, which essentially amounts to heavy right-leaning advocacy journalism that emphasizes conservative viewpoints while dismissing or downplaying opposing perspectives. On the other side, mainstream outlets like CNN and MSNBC tend to lean left or are at least centered; they make more apparent efforts to maintain objectivity, although biases are still present.
I suspect that if Professor Turley aimed to write completely objective columns, he would likely face a significant backlash from MAGA supporters and libertarians, who might accuse him of turning leftist or betraying the conservative cause. It seems probable that Turley refrains from fully objective journalism intentionally, as doing so could lead to a loss of readership on the right and undermine the credibility he has built among those ideological groups. Maintaining his audience is crucial, not only for his visibility but also for the protection it offers from the Trump administration’s pattern of dismissing critics as “fake news” or part of the “radical left.”
Both Turley and Fox News depend heavily on their respective audiences to sustain their relevance. This reliance sustains a cycle of advocacy journalism—an approach that prioritizes ideological reinforcement over neutrality—permeating even the work of journalists like Turley who might otherwise strive for impartiality.
what is your point?
I dont doubt that in many instances Fox News reports are steeped in advocacy journalism. But to pretend that ABC, CBS,NBC, CNN MSNOW etc are not likewise corrupt is absurd.
I didn’t pretent, I acknowledged that CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC also engage in advocacy journalism.
Fox News recognized that it was profitable and allowed them to keep their audience and readers engaged in ‘their’ news. Others took notice and did the same. Because full on objective journalism does not capture readers and audiences the same way advocacy journalism does.
Even Turley does it, because he knows it brings in readers and keeps them in.
Truly, one of the more moronic responses here. Fox has more Democrats in its audience than does CNN, so clearly, its journalism is more balanced than what you give it credit for.
Wally, and your evidence that shows Fox News has more Democrats in its audience than CNN is?
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/580171-more-democrats-watch-fox-news-during-primetime-than-cnndata/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/media/article-14385749/democrats-fox-news-cnn-msnbc-advertisers.html
contrarian clown.
FOX is filling a narrow, but profitable market niche. It is a premium channel that you must pay for. A limited number of people are willing to do that, but enough to make good money. But it is a saturated market. There isn’t room in the market for another premium channel like that. And in the broadcast world, most remaining viewers and the desirable demos for the advertisers want liberal news. The same is true of Post subscribers.
Hey CNN and CBS, you paying attention. Here is your future. You want to feel superior of have a job?
“Hey CNN and CBS, you paying attention. Here is your future. You want to feel superior of have a job?”
For CNN, a key part of that answer could be demonstrated by how they, as an organization, react to their chief data analyst, Harry Enten, going on record stating that US citizens overwhelmingly favor voter id, and that a strong preference for it cuts right across party affiliations and racial groups. Will their talking heads acknowledge this, or will Enten be looking for a new job? I suspect it may be the latter.
CNN’s Enten: 83% Favor Voter ID, It’s Not Controversial
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2026/02/03/cnns_enten_83_favor_voter_id_its_not_controversial.html
“So, the bottom line is this, voter I.D. is not controversial in this country. A photo I.D. to vote is not controversial in this country. It is not controversial by party, and it is not controversial by race. The vast majority of Americans agree with Nicki Minaj that, in fact, you should have a photo I.D. to be able to vote.”
Yet the dem-o-rat party hates Vote ID. I wonder why?
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.
Except, the audience is independent thinkers and fully half of their audience has left due to the bias. This is as much about economics as it is about bias. The media has moved so far to one side of the spectrum people stopped listening and left. The economics is that without these people, you cannot run a business.
The absence of federal tax money has allowed NPR and PBS to jerk even further to the left, which I hadn’t thought would be possible.
The activists getting into the faces of ICE officers, blocking traffic, blowing whistles, or honking horns, are merely exercising their First Amendment rights, in Leeft World.
“The absence of federal tax money has allowed NPR and PBS to jerk even further to the left”
And how big of an audience do they now command? If it is relatively small, and dwindling, as I suspect, I’m more than happy to see them continue to slide off of the left edge. As they preach to their little choir, *someone* other than the taxpayer is burning up beaucoup bucks to keep them in business. I’d much rather see that money flushed down their “pubic” broadcasting toilet than have it available to be spent on some truly damaging initiative.
Quiet Man, I agree with one exception: It may not be “independent thinkers” as a category, but it is clearly an audience with different expectations and standards than what’s being produced. When those standards aren’t met, people don’t argue, they disengage.
A sound business response would be to analyze what successful outlets are producing and identify what standards are attracting and retaining their audiences. After shedding market share on an advocacy brand that fewer and fewer people trust, the choice is straightforward: sincerely adapt to what consumers value or accept that the model no longer works.
True, but once an audience has left, you can’t get them back. All you can do is to alienate your remaining subscribers. That is the dilemma of a death spiral.
The Quiet Man,
Quite right and well said. As I have mentioned in the past, I used to listen to NPR from Morning Edition to All Things Considered. Sure they had their slant and bias, but you could easily dismiss it and still get the news. Then 2016 happened and they went all in advocacy journalism and CNN like panel-o-pundits. The mental gymnastics they went to, to link anything bad to Trump was gold medal amazing and not in a good way. It was nauseating. That is why I, and many others, switched them off. We are independent thinkers and do not want nor will we pay for their advocacy biased journalism.
Objectivity once was the norm. I blame the Sulzbergers for tolerating and encouraging leftward bias. Consider hat even their conservative pundits must slam Trump.
OLLY,
Well said. It requires work and discipline to report objectively. To keep one’s personal bias out of reporting. It is so much easier and lazy to just report one’s feelings and bias and dress it up as “news.”
Olly,
“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.”
I couldn’t agree more. You are spot on with that observation.
It’s easier to promote opinion as fact and push a narrative than to analyze or report the facts as they are. Because, as you so aptly stated, it requires the audience to think and consider rather than blindly accept what is essentially opinion disguised as fact.
I will add that part of the problem is also intellectual laziness. Being forced to think for yourself and understand what is being reported seems too much for many in a country that values instant gratification, immediate results, high expectations, and confirmation of pre-existing beliefs to avoid the uncomfortable prospect of being wrong.
I’d add one more missing piece: standards. Without agreed-upon standards, it’s also intellectually lazy to assume objectivity is absent simply because one source is trusted more than another. That turns judgment into brand loyalty rather than analysis.
Becoming an objective consumer of information takes work. When you do that work, you’re not dependent on any single outlet. You can take in reporting from anywhere and evaluate whether it’s evidence-based truth or advocacy dressed up as journalism. Standards are what make that possible.
And to be clear, yours is a fair and thoughtful response. It engages the argument rather than caricaturing it, which is exactly what standards-based discussion should look like.
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.
“Conformity is like a warm bath.”
Except, at the end of such a bath, it typically isn’t your core substance going down the drain with the water…
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.
“Because our citizenry is so poorly educated”
The majority of public achool teachers are Democrats. Twice as many teachers are Democrats as Republicans.
We can thank Randi Weingarten and her education union ilk for this Democrat saturation in our schools and universities .
“We can thank Randi Weingarten and her education union ilk for this Democrat saturation in our schools and universities .”
This has been going on far longer than the temporal scope of your comment suggests. I’m nearly 80, and I recall being exposed to de facto communist propaganda about why class members should become teachers by a newly graduated English instructor when I was in high school.
There is no evidence that the majority of schools in the U.S. are run by Democrats. Public school governance is typically nonpartisan, with locally elected school boards overseeing operations, and most states do not list party affiliations on school board ballots.
However, Democratic alignment is common in urban school districts. For example, eight of the nine members of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools board are Democrats, and many large, majority-minority urban districts—such as those in New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles—are governed by Democrats. These districts often face challenges like achievement gaps and declining test scores, which have drawn political scrutiny.
I said teachers. You know, hose people standing in front of the classroom,paid to influnce our youth?
That’s where the rubber meets the road. School boards do not monitor what goes on in the classroom. The principal shows up once or twice a year. Criticsl thinking, questioning the textbook, is rarely taught.
“and unable to discern fact from opinion”
News articles, believe it or not, used to contain objective facts only. Nowadays, even the driest NYT article contains spin, and “news analysis” is so slanted, it could fall off the page.
it is incredibly easy to refute your entire essay with one point… That advocacy is profitable. If it is profitable, why is the Washington Post failing, and why are CNN and other left siding outlets struggling?
How different is this from 200 years ago when most news sources were explicitly political? Perhaps only in that today’s news sources usually claim to be objective.
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>
“Kammy was supported by 84 billionaires. Why don’t they step up and volunteer to lose money and be abused”
Because I have little doubt that most or all of those 84 are only billionaires because of political connections, i.e., graft.
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?
“They have families, possibly some kids, financial responsibilities.”
Hmmm. Understandable, but possibly misplaced. Is it not likely that those families and kids are indoctrinated into the identical belief systems that prevail at WaPo, and that continued good financial fortune would tend to perpetuate those systems? Maybe a bit of hardship could cause them to re-calibrate. Is it not also plausible that many of those financial obligations are likely to businesses and organizations seeking to subvert our country and culture? I make an effort to be diligent in preventing my money and even my sympathies from working against my own best interests.
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.
How and why were so many disturbed individuals hired in the first place?
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.
OLLY,
I think you are on to something. That would be one show I would actually watch.
but would you understand it?