Not so long ago - less than a decade ago - The New York Times and The Washington Post were almost evenly matched in the race for readers, prestige and exclusives. The Times has always been bigger, but the two papers were still comparable.
Today, the picture is completely different. The Post is seeing a decline in influence, a shrinking editorial staff, and a worsening financial situation - losing at least $100 million a year - while the Times is on a stunning upward trajectory, with operating profits approaching $200 million a year.
The New York Times now has about 13 million digital subscribers, while the Washington Post has about two million. The Times employs more than 2.000 journalists and editors worldwide, while the Post has shrunk to just 400 editorial staff, from more than 1,000 at one point.
There is no longer any doubt about who won this battle.
Why has the difference become so dramatic?
I was the editor of reader complaints at The Times until 2016, when reader revenue (especially online subscriptions) became more important than traditional print advertising revenue. That was a major turning point on the road to digital success. I then wrote a media column for The Post throughout Donald Trump’s first administration, including years of encouraging growth and success.
That's why I followed it all firsthand. The difference was certainly not in journalistic talent. For decades, both newsrooms were full of such talent - winning numerous Pulitzers and employing top reporters and editors.
But in the end it all came down to leadership.
Whatever the political beliefs of the Post's readers - certainly not all liberals - they knew what they were looking at: the loss of editorial independence, because the owner cared more about his own business interests than about a reputable media outlet that was supposed to be run responsibly.
At The Times, a publicly traded company, management was stable, predictable, and thoughtful - constantly looking to the future.
Here's one example: More than a decade ago, future publisher Arthur Greg Salzberger was one of the key figures behind an "innovation report" that pushed the company to focus its energies on a radical shift from a newspaper to a digital media house. The report criticized the paper for lagging behind its competitors on these metrics.
His father, publisher Arthur Salzberger Jr., before handing over the helm, hired or promoted people like former BBC chief Mark Thompson and Meredith Kopit Levien (now chief executive), who made smart business decisions, but with a clear understanding that The Times' journalism came first.
The Times editorial staff itself has for years been dominated by a gradual rise from within its own ranks. Leadership is nurtured and selected internally; such a practice can foster introversion and a sense of self-sufficiency, but it also brings stability.
The history of the Washington Post tells a very different story. The paper — made famous by its investigative reporting on Watergate, which exposed a corrupt president — struggled financially under the Graham family in the early 21st century. As print advertising revenue declined, the paper seemed unsure whether it was primarily a regional outlet covering the District of Columbia and its suburbs, or a national newspaper with global ambitions.
When billionaire entrepreneur Jeff Bezos bought the newspaper in 2013, it seemed like salvation had arrived.
Marty Baron, a strong and visionary editor, was already at the helm, and during his eight years the paper flourished. Resolute journalism kept Trump under the microscope, and both the business side and the editorial team were focused on growth and innovation.
Publisher Fred Ryan, formally Barron's superior, mostly stayed out of the picture. And Bezos stayed in the background and, to his credit, didn't cave in to Trump's threats and belittling.
When Barron retired in 2021 — and was succeeded by the much weaker Sally Busby, whose career has been almost entirely tied to the Associated Press — and when Bezos later replaced Ryan with the notorious Will Lewis, things began to fall apart.
All the gains that The Washington Post had made up until then - the growth of digital subscriptions and even several years of profitable business - began to melt away.
Lewis never established a relationship with journalists, and his ideas (like creating a "third editorial board," whatever that's supposed to mean) caused real damage.
At one significant moment, in early 2022, the brilliant Post reporter David Farenthold left for the Times. It was a bad sign.
And then something even worse happened. Just before the 2024 election, Bezos began to curry favor with Trump. In a move that has become infamous, he stopped a planned editorial in which the editorial staff was supposed to support Kamala Harris, allegedly because such editorial endorsements foster distrust.
Whatever the political beliefs of the Post's readers - certainly not all liberals - they knew what they were looking at: the loss of editorial independence, because the owner was more concerned with his own business interests - not only Amazon, but also his space company Blue Origin - than with a reputable media outlet with a rich tradition, which he was supposed to lead responsibly.
In protest, around 200.000 loyal "Post" subscribers canceled their subscriptions. And then others followed suit.
Bezos not only failed to correct the mess he had made, but he even compounded it: he reorganized the opinion column and continued to flatter Trump.
Now, after major layoffs and the long-deserved dismissal of Luis, the situation at "Post" is, to put it mildly, extremely uncertain.
"We are witnessing a murder," wrote Ashley Parker, a former political reporter for the Post who now works at The Atlantic.
If management has led to such a large gap in results, then only prudent and effective management at "The Post" can begin to close the gap.
As someone who has deeply appreciated The Washington Post for decades, I would love to see that looming on the horizon. But I see no sign of it.
The comment was published in "The Guardian"
Prepared by: A. Š.
Bonus video:
