The #WhyISubscribe social media campaign is both tone-deaf and ineffective, according to one veteran journalist.
By Tanzina Vega
As of last week, a quarter of a million Washington Post readers have canceled their subscriptions over what many see as an overreach on the part of billionaire owner Jeff Bezos, who decided that the paper would not endorse a presidential candidate in this year’s election.
Some readers and reporters from the Post and The New York Times have posted their reasons for sticking with the paper under the hashtag campaign #WhyISubscribe. The reasons are plentiful, beginning with the Post’s own journalism. This year, for example, the paper, whose editorial slogan has been “Democracy Dies in Darkness” won a Pulitzer Prize for a series on the AR-15.
I agree with a campaign that explains why this kind of journalism is essential and should be supported. I disagree that the upset over the Bezos endorsement ban is on audiences to fix, that readers are misguided or worse in canceling, and the implication that only commercial for-profit newsrooms deserve to be rescued.
I disagree that the upset over the Bezos endorsement ban is on audiences to fix.
#WhyISubscribe is an appeal to continue to financially support the paper by not pulling subscriptions, which to me is the wrong thing to ask.
ProPublica’s Charles Ornstein calls for subscribers not to “take your views on their owners out on them” noting that great reporters work at the LA Times, (whose owner also prevented the publication of a Harris endorsement) and the Post whose journalism “is essential today and in the future.”
This may be true, but assuming that the Post is one of the only places to get that journalism today is also unfair to readers. ProPublica is also a non profit newsroom funded largely by philanthropy and individual contributions versus the more traditional subscription model employed by the Post.
“What intrigues me is the baked-in notion that enough essential journalism can’t possibly be done outside a corporate legacy newspaper with bad ownership and white male leaders already criticized for months,” writes Mississippi Today editor Donna Ladd. “We’re ultimately being asked to support broken media power structures.”
Washington Post subscribers are, I imagine, well-informed about the consequences of making the choice to unsubscribe. They have chosen to speak with their dollars and that choice has gotten the attention of the rank and file of the paper — but not, so far at least, the attention of Bezos, who added insult to injury by writing an op-ed admonishing his journalists for failing to meet the moment.
But #WhyISubscribe also raises the curtain on what readers expect from their news organizations.
“Your choice to work for them. My choice whether or not to buy from them,” writes a Twitter user going by @technodiva. “Where I put my few precious dollars is an ethical choice. Like who you work for when you have the privilege to choose.”
Washington Post subscribers are, I imagine, well-informed about the consequences of making the choice to unsubscribe.
Ultimately there are a few things the media chatter about what’s happening at the Washington Post that I think folks are missing:
You’re selling a product.
I know, I hate to think about news and journalism like that. But readers have been told that in order to support democracy they need to spend some money on paying journalists to keep the powerful accountable. And they are savvy enough to know that canceling their subscription to the product will get your attention.
You no longer have ombudspeople or reader representatives.
Once upon a time, readers had people whose entire job it was to represent their concerns to the organization. Before social media, that was one of the few ways to make noise. Today, public editors are far and few between and editorial boards themselves are lacking in diversity (including at The Post). When you close yourself off to your readers, when you force them to use social media and their dollars to unsubscribe – they will.
Understand the incongruence of what you are asking people to do.
This isn’t the reader’s problem to solve. It’s the organization’s mess to clean up, especially management and the paper’s union. Rank and file reporters can also consider making these appeals internally if they aren’t already.
Yes, I know that opinion is not the same as news. Yes, I agree it’s not fair to take this out on hard-working journalists. But at the same time, readers have serious concerns over what’s been happening at The Post even before the latest scandal, including the abrupt departure of Sally Buzzbee and the hiring of a UK leadership team known for shady journalism practices. It’s not far-fetched to assume that there may be future pressure to conform to edicts from above, news or not.
In the words of X user @stratadem, “#WhyISubscribe is kinda sad. Your editors are anonymous and your boss is a billionaire who sold you out. Corporate telling you to astroturf this is just an epilogue to refusing to take accountability.”
Readers have serious concerns over what’s been happening at The Post even before the latest scandal.
Your entire industry is under attack, not just your paper.
Audiences are at a breaking point. It won’t take much, on top of everything else that’s going on for folks to move on. Journalists often tell readers that they ‘Call it like they see it.’ Well, that’s exactly what readers are doing right now – calling it exactly how they see it by pulling their dollars.
Make calls for newsroom solidarity a more common thing.
Solidarity works when it’s employed across the industry, not just when you are trying to protect your and your friends’ own jobs and careers. There are so many journalists who have been laid off and can’t find work, who are losing their homes, who are pivoting careers that we need to be mindful that the pain is shared among many.
It’s hubris to think that only legacy outlets can and will save the day.
Journalists have been supporting themselves with blogs, independent podcasts, Substacks, TikToks, and more.
We are adjuncts, ghostwriters, and grant seekers.
Many of us love this industry but can’t see a path forward in the traditional institutions, so we are creating our own.
Calls to support one another would be more welcome if they came for all of us rather than a few.
Tanzina Vega is a journalist, host, and educator. She and her work have appeared in the Boston Globe, NYU, The New York Times, CNN, WNYC and more You can follow her at @tanzinavega.
Previously from The Grade
How the Washington Post missed the DC schools graduation rate scandal so badly, for so long
Tabloid-style education news is all the rage at the New York Times and the Washington Post
Holding solutions journalism accountable
Deepening your reporting with community-based solutions
Confessions of a former accountability purist
Making education journalism more accessible and inclusive
Why’s there so little coverage of everyday teacher racism?
