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: