The Stark Divide Between Two Media Giants
Less than a decade ago, the New York Times and Washington Post were nearly neck-and-neck competitors in the race for readers, reputation, and groundbreaking journalism. While the Times always maintained a larger presence, the two publications were considered somewhat comparable in influence and reach.
Today, that comparison seems almost unimaginable. The Washington Post has been experiencing a steady decline across multiple fronts – diminishing influence, shrinking newsroom staff, and deteriorating financial health with annual losses exceeding $100 million. Meanwhile, the New York Times continues its remarkable upward trajectory, boasting operating profits approaching $200 million each year.
The Numbers Tell a Troubling Story
The disparity between these two media institutions has become increasingly pronounced. The New York Times now commands approximately 13 million digital subscribers, dwarfing the Washington Post's roughly 2 million. In terms of journalistic manpower, the Times maintains a global newsroom staff well over 2,000, while the Post has dwindled to just 400 employees after previously reaching heights exceeding 1,000.
There is no longer any question about which publication has emerged victorious from this media competition. The contrast between their trajectories has become stark and undeniable.
Leadership: The Critical Differentiator
Having served as the New York Times public editor until 2016 and later as the Washington Post's media columnist throughout the first Trump administration, I witnessed these developments firsthand. The divergence between these institutions cannot be attributed to journalistic talent – both newsrooms have historically been filled with exceptional reporters and editors who have earned numerous Pulitzer Prizes.
The fundamental difference lies in leadership. At the New York Times, a publicly traded company, leadership has remained steady, predictable, and strategically savvy with a consistent focus on future growth. More than twelve years ago, soon-to-be publisher AG Sulzberger championed the "innovation report" that pushed the company toward radical digital transformation. His father, publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., made crucial hires including former BBC executive Mark Thompson and current CEO Meredith Kopit Levien, who balanced smart business decisions with respect for journalistic integrity.
The Washington Post's Turbulent Journey
The Washington Post's history presents a dramatically different narrative. Famous for its Watergate reporting that exposed presidential corruption, the paper struggled financially under Graham family ownership in the early 21st century. As print advertising declined, the publication seemed uncertain whether to position itself as a regional outlet serving Washington D.C. and its suburbs or as a national paper with global ambitions.
When billionaire entrepreneur Jeff Bezos purchased the paper in 2013, it appeared salvation had arrived. Under visionary editor Marty Baron's eight-year leadership, the Post thrived with forceful journalism that held the Trump administration accountable. Both business operations and newsroom functions focused on growth and innovation during this period.
The Unraveling Begins
The turning point arrived in 2021 when Baron retired and was succeeded by Sally Buzbee, whose background was primarily at the Associated Press. The situation deteriorated further when Bezos replaced publisher Fred Ryan with Will Lewis, whose leadership proved disastrous. All the gains the Post had achieved – including digital subscription growth and several years of profitability – began to dissipate.
Lewis failed to connect with journalists, and his confusing initiatives, including the creation of a "third newsroom," caused significant harm. An ominous sign emerged in early 2022 when acclaimed Post reporter David Fahrenthold departed to join the New York Times.
The Final Blow to Editorial Independence
Shortly before the 2024 election, Bezos made a fateful decision that would further damage the Post's credibility. He killed a planned editorial endorsing Kamala Harris, claiming that endorsement editorials create distrust among readers. This move, widely perceived as Bezos cozying up to Donald Trump, signaled the loss of editorial independence to commercial interests extending beyond the Post to Amazon and Blue Origin.
In protest, approximately 200,000 loyal Post subscribers canceled their memberships, with more following suit. Bezos compounded the damage by revamping the opinion section while continuing to align himself with Trump's interests.
The Current State of Affairs
Following deep layoffs and the eventual firing of Will Lewis, the Washington Post's fortunes remain deeply troubled. As former Post politics reporter Ashley Parker, now at the Atlantic, starkly observed: "We're witnessing a murder."
If leadership decisions created this vast separation in fortunes between these media institutions, only enlightened and effective leadership at the Post can begin to close the gap. As someone who has revered the Washington Post for decades, I wish I could see that transformation on the horizon. Unfortunately, no such glimpse of recovery appears visible at this critical juncture.
