The Stark Divide: Washington Post's Decline vs. New York Times' Ascent
Not long ago, the Washington Post and the New York Times were fierce competitors, nearly equal in readers, reputation, and groundbreaking journalism. The Times held a slight edge, but both were considered titans of American news. Today, that rivalry has evaporated into a one-sided story of decline and triumph.
A Financial and Editorial Chasm Widens
The Post is hemorrhaging influence, staff, and money, with annual losses exceeding $100 million. In stark contrast, the New York Times boasts an operating profit approaching $200 million yearly. Digital subscriptions tell a similar tale: the Times has about 13 million subscribers, dwarfing the Post's roughly 2 million. Newsroom staffing reflects this disparity—the Times employs over 2,000 journalists globally, while the Post has shrunk to just 400, down from a peak of more than 1,000.
The war for supremacy is decisively over.
Why Such a Dramatic Difference?
As a former public editor at the Times and media columnist at the Post, I witnessed this transformation firsthand. The gap isn't due to a lack of journalistic talent; both newsrooms have long been filled with Pulitzer Prize-winning reporters and editors. Instead, the divergence stems squarely from leadership.
At the New York Times, a publicly traded company, leadership has been steady, predictable, and forward-thinking. Over a decade ago, AG Sulzberger championed an "innovation report" that pushed the paper to transition radically from print to digital. His father, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., appointed executives like Mark Thompson and Meredith Kopit Levien, who balanced smart business decisions with a commitment to journalistic excellence. Newsroom leadership has been groomed internally, fostering stability despite risks of insularity.
The Post's Turbulent Leadership Saga
The Washington Post's history is far more chaotic. Struggling financially under Graham family ownership in the early 2000s, the paper wavered between being a regional outlet and a national powerhouse. Jeff Bezos's purchase in 2013 seemed like salvation. Under editor Marty Baron, the Post thrived, holding Trump accountable and focusing on growth. Bezos remained hands-off, and publisher Fred Ryan was largely benign.
However, Baron's retirement in 2021 marked a turning point. His successor, Sally Buzbee, lacked his vision, and Bezos replaced Ryan with Will Lewis, whose ideas, like a vague "third newsroom," alienated staff. Gains in digital subscriptions and profitability began to vanish. In a symbolic blow, star reporter David Fahrenthold defected to the Times.
A Crisis of Independence and Trust
The situation worsened when Bezos, ahead of the 2024 election, killed an editorial endorsing Kamala Harris, citing distrust—a move seen as cozying up to Trump. This perceived loss of editorial independence, driven by Bezos's commercial interests in Amazon and Blue Origin, sparked outrage. Approximately 200,000 subscribers canceled in protest, with more following. Bezos compounded the error by revamping the opinion section and continuing to align with Trump.
After deep layoffs and Lewis's firing, the Post's future is bleak. As former Post reporter Ashley Parker noted, "We're witnessing a murder." If leadership created this vast separation, only enlightened and effective leadership can begin to bridge the gap. Yet, for those who revere the Post, hope remains elusive on the horizon.
