---
author: New York Times Podcasts
date: '2026-02-06'
guest: ''
layout: post.njk
source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcWHemJVWy4
speaker: New York Times Podcasts
tags:
  - journalism-industry
  - media-business
  - newsroom-layoffs
  - editorial-policy
  - digital-media
title: 华盛顿邮报的困境：贝索斯时代下的裁员与转型
summary: 本期节目深入探讨了《华盛顿邮报》自杰夫·贝索斯收购以来所经历的重大裁员事件。节目回顾了收购初期的乐观情绪、对技术和报道的投入、特朗普时期对读者和收入的影响，以及后续的商业模式挑战。对话聚焦于近期关于编辑独立性和观点转向的争议性决策，这些决策导致了订阅用户流失和内部不满。分析指出，尽管记者团队仍具实力，但《华盛顿邮报》正面临资源缩减和媒体行业潜在“死亡螺旋”的严峻挑战，未来前景不明。
insight: ''
draft: true
series: ''
category: business-entrepreneurship
area: finance-wealth
project: []
people: []
companies_orgs:
  - The Washington Post
  - Amazon
products_models: []
media_books: []
status: evergreen
---
### 裁员风波与贝索斯时代

**瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯**: 来自《纽约时报》，我是瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯。这里是《每日播报》。[音乐] 当**杰夫·贝索斯**在十多年前收购**《华盛顿邮报》**时，新闻编辑室内外的人们都持谨慎乐观的态度。也许他能振兴美国一家最负盛名的 [音乐] 新闻机构之一。>> 对新闻界最传奇的品牌之一来说，这是毁灭性的打击。《华盛顿邮报》正在裁 [音乐] 掉其所有部门三分之一的员工。>> 然而，这些希望在周三破灭，当时该报裁掉了其新闻编辑室三分之一以上的人员，影响了报纸的几乎每个版块。>> [音乐] 报纸的图书部门将关闭，其邮报报道、播客暂停，>> 其整个体育部门，以及大部分海外记者。>> 今天，我采访了我的同事**埃里克·温普尔** [音乐]，谈谈出了什么问题以及接下来会发生什么。>> [音乐] >> 这是 2 月 5 日，星期四。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Rachel Abrams**: From
 the
 New
 York
 Times,
 I'm
 Rachel


Abrams.
 This
 is
 the
 Daily.
 [music]


When
 Jeff
 Bezos
 bought
 the
 Washington


Post
 more
 than
 a
 decade
 ago,
 journalists


inside
 and
 [music]
 outside
 of
 the


newsroom
 were
 cautiously
 optimistic.


Maybe
 he
 could
 revitalize
 one
 [music]
 of


America's
 most
 storied
 news


organizations.


>> Brutal
 blow
 to
 one
 of
 journalism's
 most


legendary
 brands.
 The
 Washington
 Post
 is


laying
 [music]
 off
 onethird
 of
 its
 staff


across
 all
 departments.


>> Those
 hopes
 though
 were
 dashed
 on


Wednesday
 when
 the
 paper
 laid
 off
 more


[music]
 than
 a
 third
 of
 its
 newsroom,


affecting
 nearly
 every
 section
 of
 the


paper.


>> The
 [music]
 newspaper's
 books
 department


will
 close,
 its
 post
 reports,
 podcast


suspended,


>> its
 entire
 sports
 department,
 and
 most


of
 its
 overseas
 journalists.


>> Today,
 I
 talked
 to
 my
 colleague
 Eric


Wemple
 [music]
 about
 what
 went
 wrong
 and


what
 comes
 next.


>> [music]


>> It's
 Thursday,
 February
 5th.

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 谢谢。谢谢您邀请我。今天收听我们节目的很多人可能都知道，人们一直在用非常末世的言论来谈论**《华盛顿邮报》**的现状，特别是周三发生的裁员，许多人坦率地称之为一场血洗。而你，埃里克，不仅是《纽约时报》的媒体记者，你还曾是《华盛顿邮报》的媒体专栏作家，这就是我们今天想和你谈的原因，因为你拥有这个独特的视角。那么，我们先从这些削减开始，你告诉我们我们知道些什么。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: Thank you. Thank you
 for
 having
 me.
 A


lot
 of
 people
 listening
 to
 our
 show


today
 probably
 have
 some
 kind
 of


awareness
 that
 people
 have
 been
 talking


in
 really
 apocalyptic
 terms
 about
 the


state
 of
 affairs
 at
 the
 Washington


Post
 and
 specifically
 the
 layoffs


that
 happened
 on
 Wednesday
 which
 were


described
 by
 many
 people
 as
 frankly
 a


bloodbath.


And
 you
 Eric
 you
 are
 not
 only
 a
 media


reporter
 at
 the
 New
 York
 Times
 but
 you


also
 were
 a
 media
 columnist
 at
 the


Washington
 Post
 and
 this
 is
 why
 we


wanted
 to
 talk
 to
 you
 today
 because
 of


this
 unique
 vantage
 point
 that
 you
 have.


So,
 just
 to
 start,
 tell
 us
 what
 we
 know


about
 these
 cuts.

</details>

**瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯**: 那么，我们现在知道些什么，在周三下午大约 3:50 的时候，关于谁被裁了？

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Rachel Abrams**: So,
 what
 do
 we
 know
 at
 this
 point
 at
 about


3:50
 in
 the
 afternoon
 on
 Wednesday
 about


who
 was
 laid
 off?

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 那么，这是《华盛顿邮报》一个极其严峻的结局，正如许多人所说，是黑暗的一天。我们知道裁员即将到来，但它们发生了，而且是以巨大的力量发生的。而且这种分析不需要再深入多少，只需说有 300 名从事新闻业以造福美国公民生活的人失去了工作，可能失去了他们的职业和生计，至少在一段时间内是这样。所以分析不必超越这一点。但它还有另一个维度，那就是这是《华盛顿邮报》，而《华盛顿邮报》目前在报道一个政府方面发挥着极其重要的作用，而这个政府无论有多少人手似乎都不够。所以，这就是我对此事的看法。我认为这也是为什么这件事如此重大的原因之一。>> 我们现在知道些什么，在周三下午大约 3:50 的时候，关于谁被裁了？嗯，我们知道这次削减从新闻编辑室拿走了大约 300 个职位，而这个新闻编辑室的人数大约是 800 人。我记得几年前，可能是在 2021 年左右，人数曾超过 1000 人，从那时起，就一直在进行收缩。>> 裁员不成比例地影响了都会区版块、体育版块和国际报道。这三个领域近几周、近几个月来一直有传言说会受到影响。事实也确实如此。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: So,
 this
 is
 an
 extremely
 grim
 outcome
 at


the
 Washington
 Post.
 A
 dark
 day,
 as
 many


people
 have
 been
 saying.
 We
 knew
 the


layoffs
 were
 coming,
 but
 they
 hit
 and


they
 hit
 with
 a
 tremendous
 amount
 of


force.
 And
 that
 analysis
 doesn't
 need
 to


extend
 that
 much
 further
 than
 just


saying
 that
 300
 people
 who
 practice


journalism
 for
 the
 benefit
 of
 American


civic
 life
 have
 lost
 their
 jobs,
 maybe


lost
 their
 careers
 and
 their
 livelihood


at
 least
 for
 some
 time.
 So
 it
 doesn't


really
 have
 to
 go
 beyond
 that
 analysis.


But
 there
 is
 another
 dimension
 to
 it


which
 is
 that
 this
 is
 the
 Washington


Post
 and
 the
 Washington
 Post
 right
 now


is
 playing
 an
 enormously
 important
 role


in
 covering
 an
 administration
 for
 whom


no
 headcount
 is
 really
 sufficient.
 So


that's
 what
 I
 would
 say
 about
 the


enormity
 of
 these
 events.


>> What
 do
 we
 know
 at
 this
 point
 at
 about


3:50
 in
 the
 afternoon
 on
 Wednesday
 about


who
 was
 laid
 off?


Well,
 we
 know
 that
 the
 cuts
 took
 about


300
 positions
 out
 of
 the
 newsroom
 and


this
 was
 a
 newsroom
 that
 was
 at
 about


800
 in
 terms
 of
 its
 headcount.
 It
 had


crested
 up
 above,00
 several
 years
 ago
 I


think
 and
 maybe
 in
 2021
 around
 then
 and


since
 then
 it
 has
 been
 an
 exercise
 in


retrenchment.


>> The
 layoffs
 landed
 disproportionately
 on


the
 metro
 desk,
 the
 sports
 desk
 and
 the


international
 coverage.
 Those
 are
 three


areas
 that
 have
 been
 rumored
 to
 be
 hit


in
 recent
 weeks,
 recent
 months.
 And


indeed,
 that's
 what
 happened.

</details>

### 行业困境与贝索斯收购

**瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯**: 感觉同时发生了许多不同的事情。《华盛顿邮报》面临着艰难的生意，你有一个亿万富翁老板，你有一个整个行业都在努力弄清楚如何在互联网和社交媒体时代生存下去。那么，这些叙述中的哪一个能解释为什么三分之一的新闻编辑室在周三被裁掉了呢？

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Rachel Abrams**: It
 feels
 like
 there
 are
 many
 different


things
 happening
 at
 once
 at
 the


Washington
 Post.
 You've
 got
 a
 tough


business,
 you've
 got
 a
 billionaire


owner,
 you've
 got
 an
 entire
 industry


struggling
 to
 figure
 out
 how
 to
 make
 it


in
 the
 age
 of
 the
 internet
 and
 social


media.
 So,
 which
 of
 these
 narratives


helps
 explain
 why
 a
 third
 of
 the


newsroom
 was
 laid
 off
 on
 Wednesday?

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 《邮报》的现状有些复杂。第一，《华盛顿邮报》是一家传统的地区性报纸，作为一家传统地区性报纸，它存在商业模式问题，非常明显，与收入来源枯竭有关，这在整个行业都是如此。再加上**杰夫·贝索斯**在过去几年里犯了一些错误，导致了用户流失，给《华盛顿邮报》带来了商业模式问题，而这些问题并非我们过去几十年所见的标准问题。所以，这就是我的看法。我认为这也是为什么这是一个大新闻的原因之一。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: The
 question
 of
 what's
 happening
 to
 the
 Post


is
 a
 little
 bit
 layered.
 Number
 one,
 the


Washington
 Post
 is
 a
 legacy
 regional


newspaper
 and
 as
 a
 legacy
 regional


newspaper,


it
 has
 business
 model
 problems,
 very


clear
 ones
 that
 relate
 to
 the
 drying
 up


of
 revenue
 streams
 and
 that's
 across
 the


industry.
 Add
 on
 to
 that
 that
 Jeff
 Bezos


in
 the
 past
 couple
 of
 years
 has
 made


some
 mists
 that
 have
 led
 to
 the


desertion
 of
 subscribers
 and
 business


model
 problems
 for
 the
 Washington


Post
 that
 really
 don't
 come
 with
 the
 standard


issue
 crisis
 that
 we've
 seen
 over
 the


past
 few
 decades.
 So
 that's
 how
 I'd
 put


it.
 And
 I
 think
 that
 that's
 one
 of
 the


reasons
 why
 this
 is
 such
 a
 big
 story.

</details>

**瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯**: 我想稍微倒带一下，回到 2013 年，也就是杰夫·贝索斯收购《邮报》的那一年。当时，无论是新闻界内部还是外部的人们都非常乐观，认为这个人会骑着白马来，给这个地方注入资金，帮助它实现抱负。那么，请带我们回到那个时刻，告诉我事情是如何演变的。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Rachel Abrams**: I
 want
 to
 rewind
 a
 little
 bit
 and
 go


back
 to
 2013,
 the
 year
 that
 Jeff
 Bezos


purchased
 the
 post.
 And
 at
 the
 time,


people
 both
 inside
 and
 I
 think
 outside


journalism
 were
 extremely
 optimistic


that
 this
 guy
 was
 going
 to
 basically


ride
 in
 on
 a
 white
 horse
 and
 infuse
 the


place
 with
 cash
 and
 help
 it
 realize
 its


ambitions.
 So,
 bring
 us
 back
 to
 that


moment
 and
 tell
 us
 kind
 of
 how
 things


evolved
 from
 there.

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 当杰夫·贝索斯收购《华盛顿邮报》时，他买下的是一家在全美许多市场都失败的报纸，也就是说，一家在挣扎的报纸，一家失去了员工、失去了一些活力、也失去了一些士气的报纸。我的意思是，它仍然在制作非常好的新闻，但它肯定不是处于巅峰状态。它是一家需要投资的报纸，尤其是在当时，需要找到新的在线报道和内容发布方式，而这坦率地说是一件非常昂贵的事情，>> 对吧？所以杰夫·贝索斯在 2013 年夏秋之交以 2.5 亿美元收购了《华盛顿邮报》。贝索斯有一个想法，认为这是一个崇高的目标，一个有价值的追求，就是将这个拥有巨大社会价值、巨大公民价值的困境资产扭转过来，使其盈利。报纸行业需要新的方法，而 [音乐] 杰夫·贝索斯可能是做到这一点的人。我们希望如此，在《华盛顿邮报》>> 并且有许多充满热情的人，他们非常高兴和兴奋能与他共事，我认为这对于一位新老板来说是一个强大的组合。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: So
 when
 Jeff
 Bezos
 bought
 the
 Washington


Post,
 he
 was
 buying
 essentially
 the
 same


sort
 of
 paper
 that
 we
 had
 seen
 fail
 in
 a


lot
 of
 markets
 in
 the
 United
 States,


which
 is
 to
 say
 a
 struggling
 paper,
 a


paper
 that
 had
 lost
 staff,
 a
 paper
 that


had
 lost
 a
 little
 bit
 of
 vigor,
 and
 a


paper
 that
 had
 lost
 a
 fair
 bit
 of


morale.


I
 mean,
 it
 was
 still
 producing
 very
 good


journalism,
 but
 it
 was
 definitely
 not
 at


like
 the
 top
 of
 its
 game.
 It
 was
 a


newspaper
 in
 need
 of
 investment,


especially
 since
 the
 demands
 of
 the
 time


were
 to
 figure
 out
 new
 ways
 of
 putting


reporting
 and
 content
 online,
 which
 was


frankly
 a
 very
 expensive
 thing
 to
 do,


>> right?


So
 Jeff
 Bezos
 buys
 the
 Washington


Post
 for
 $250
 million
 basically
 in
 the
 summer


fall
 of
 2013.
 And
 Bezos
 had
 this
 idea


that
 this
 was
 a
 a
 lofty
 a
 goal
 certainly


a
 a
 worthwhile
 pursuit
 to
 turn
 this


sort
 of
 distressed
 property
 with
 a
 lot
 of


social
 value,
 a
 lot
 of
 civic
 value,
 turn


it
 around,
 make
 it
 profitable.
 the


newspaper
 industry
 needs
 new
 approaches


and
 uh
 you
 know
 Jeff
 Bezos
 may
 be
 the


guy
 to
 to
 do
 that.
 We
 hope
 so
 at
 the


Washington
 Post


>> and
 there
 were
 a
 lot
 of
 eager
 people
 who


are
 really
 happy
 and
 excited
 to
 be


working
 with
 him
 and
 I
 think
 that
 that


was
 a
 powerful
 combination
 um
 for
 a
 new


owner.


[music]

</details>

**瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯**: 我记得杰夫·贝索斯当时说过一句名言，大意是，当他老了，他最引以为豪的成就之一就是《华盛顿邮报》以及帮助它扭转局面。我记得读到那句话，也记得你所描述的那种乐观情绪。但我也记得，埃里克，当时有一些关于编辑独立性的担忧，关于一个如此富有、如此有影响力、拥有如此多不同商业利益的人来接管一家报纸意味着什么。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Rachel Abrams**: I
 remember
 reading
 a
 quote
 from
 Jeff


Bezos
 at
 some
 point
 that
 said
 something


to
 the
 effect
 of
 when
 he
 was
 old
 one
 of


the
 things
 he'd
 be
 proudest
 of
 as
 part


of
 his
 legacy
 was
 the
 Washington


Post
 and
 and
 helping
 to
 turn
 that
 place


around.
 And
 I
 remember
 reading
 that
 and


I
 remember
 the
 sense
 of
 optimism


that
 you
 are
 describing.
 But
 I
 also
 remember,


Eric,
 that
 there
 were
 some
 concerns


about
 editorial
 independence,
 concerns


about
 what
 does
 it
 mean
 for
 a
 person


that
 rich,
 that
 influential,
 who
 has


that
 many
 different
 business
 interests


to
 come
 in
 and
 take
 control
 of
 a


newspaper.

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 关于编辑独立性，绝对存在担忧。我的意思是，任何时候一家新闻机构由一位如此规模的企业家拥有，你都会面临真正、真正合法的利益冲突担忧。但贝索斯从一开始就向《华盛顿邮报》的新闻领导层明确表示，他不会干涉报道，并且基本上表示，就**亚马逊**和其他他旗下的公司及其他业务而言，无论他做什么，都要如实报道。像报道任何其他公司一样报道他。>> 他对一群记者说了所有正确的话。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: There
 were
 absolutely
 concerns
 about


editorial
 independence.
 And
 I
 mean,


anytime
 you
 have
 a
 news
 organization


owned
 by
 a
 businessman
 of
 such


proportions,
 you're
 going
 to
 have


really,
 really
 legitimate
 conflict
 of


interest
 concerns.
 But
 Bezos
 from
 the


very
 beginning
 u
 made
 it
 clear
 to
 news


leaders
 at
 the
 Washington
 Post
 that
 he


would
 not
 interfere
 in
 the
 coverage
 and


essentially
 said
 with
 respect
 to
 Amazon


and
 other
 interests
 of
 his
 other


companies
 and
 so
 on
 and
 so
 forth


whatever
 he
 would
 do
 have
 at
 it.
 Cover


it
 the
 way
 you
 would
 any
 other
 company.


>> He
 said
 all
 the
 right
 things
 to
 a
 group


of
 journalists.

</details>

**瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯**: 那他接下来做了什么？

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Rachel Abrams**: >> So
 what
 did
 he
 do
 next?

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 那么，在收购之后，他进行了投资。他投资了政治报道，投资了国际报道，投资了技术。邮报的网站有点陈旧，加载速度很慢。所以，《华盛顿邮报》变得更像一家新闻技术公司，而不是那种老式的、需要费力才能看到内容的阅读器，你知道，技术不太好用，而且你得费力地关掉多少个弹窗广告才能看到内容等等。所以贝索斯真的，他通过这些投资，让这家报纸取得了长足的进步。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: >> So
 next
 after
 buying
 the
 place
 he


invested
 in
 the
 place.
 He
 invested
 in


the
 politics
 coverage.
 He
 invested
 in


the
 international
 coverage.
 He
 invested


in
 the
 technology.
 The
 Post
 website
 was


sort
 of
 creaky.
 It
 would
 take
 a
 long


time
 to
 load.
 So,
 the
 Washington


Post
 became
 more
 of
 a
 news
 technology


company
 and
 less
 of
 this
 uh
 sort
 of
 old


fogy
 sort
 of
 readout
 where,
 you
 know,


the
 technology
 didn't
 work
 too
 well
 and
 it


was
 just
 let's
 see
 how
 many
 how
 many


pop-up
 ads
 do
 I
 have
 to
 fight
 off
 before


he
 get
 my
 content
 and
 so
 on
 and
 so


forth.
 So
 Bezos
 really
 he
 brought


the
 newspaper
 ahead
 leaps
 and
 bounds
 with


those
 investments.

</details>

**瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯**: 他让它变得用户友好。他让它变得更加用户友好。我是不是在胡说，埃里克？因为我觉得我记得在你描述的那个时期，突然看到了很多在社交媒体上看起来像普通兴趣的文章。我会在 Instagram 上看到一些东西，看起来非常用户友好，非常大众化。我记得我当时觉得，他们似乎在以一种技术精湛的方式真正扩大他们的影响力。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Rachel Abrams**: >> He
 made
 it
 user
 friendly.
 He
 made
 it


much
 more
 user
 friendly.
 Am
 I
 making


this
 up,
 Eric?
 Cuz
 I
 feel
 like
 I


remember
 around
 the
 time
 you're


describing
 suddenly
 seeing
 a
 lot
 more


articles
 that
 seemed
 like
 general


interest
 on
 social
 media.
 I
 would
 see


things
 pop
 up
 on
 Instagram
 and
 things


that
 seemed
 like
 very
 userfriendly,
 very


general
 interest.
 I
 remember
 having
 the


impression
 that
 they
 they
 seem
 to
 like


really
 be
 broadening
 their
 reach
 in
 like


a
 technologically
 savvy
 way.

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 是的。我的意思是，在贝索斯领导下，邮报在他的受众团队以及如何接触到人们方面投入了更多。你知道现在那句老话，你需要“在受众所在的地方接触他们”，或者“在他们那里”，或者“在那里”，所有这些术语。这在邮报是现实，而且非常需要。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: >> Yes.
 I
 mean
 under
 Bezos
 uh
 the
 post


invested
 more
 in
 his
 audience
 teams
 and


how
 to
 reach
 uh
 people.
 You
 know
 the
 the


cliche
 that
 now
 is
 you
 need
 to
 reach


your
 audience
 where
 it
 lies
 or
 where


where
 it
 sits
 or
 where
 it
 is
 all
 that


sort
 of
 lingo.
 That
 was
 reality
 at
 the


post
 and
 it
 was
 much
 needed.

</details>

**瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯**: 那么，贝索斯关于不干涉新闻报道的承诺呢？嗯，我的意思是，有很多迹象表明他确实遵守了诺言。华盛顿邮报对亚马逊进行了大量的报道，甚至有自己的记者专门报道这家公司，很多人都在寻找利益冲突的迹象，但并没有发现多少。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Rachel Abrams**: >> And
 what
 about
 Bezos's
 promise


of
 staying
 out
 of
 the
 news
 coverage?
 Well,


I
 mean,
 there
 were
 many
 indications


that
 he
 was
 indeed
 staying
 out
 of
 the


coverage
 as
 he
 had
 promised
 to.
 The
 the


Washington
 Post
 did
 tremendous
 coverage


of
 Amazon.
 It
 had
 its
 own
 reporter


on
 the
 company
 and
 a
 lot
 of
 people


were
 were
 looking
 for
 signs
 that
 conflict


of
 interest
 was
 coming
 to
 roost
 at
 the


Washington
 Post
 and
 they
 didn't
 come
 up


with
 much.

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 而且他们不仅看起来独立，而且做得非常出色。在此期间，《邮报》进行了非凡的报道，尤其是在**唐纳德·特朗普**当选前后以及整个任期内。与许多主要媒体一样，《邮报》对他作为候选人、作为总统进行了调查，其方式在我看来几乎是前所未有的。他们披露了关于他的慈善组织、他的商业运营的独家新闻，以及他上任第一年的情况。如果你想知道特朗普先生有多么被冒犯，你只需看看他几年前对普利策委员会提起的诉讼就知道了，对吧？>> 那么，这是一个巨大的、巨大的新闻工作和产出的时代。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: >> And
 not
 only
 did
 they,
 you
 know,
 seem


independent,
 but
 they
 were
 really
 really


knocking
 it
 out
 of
 the
 park.
 During
 this


period,
 the
 Post
 was
 doing
 an


extraordinary
 amount
 of
 excellent


journalism
 before
 Donald
 Trump's


election,
 after
 it,
 throughout
 that


term.
 The
 Post
 was
 investigating
 him


as
 a
 candidate,
 as
 a
 president,
 along
 with


other
 major
 outlets
 in
 a
 way
 that
 I


believe
 was
 almost
 unprecedented
 in


American
 politics.
 They
 were
 delivering


scoops
 about
 his
 philanthropic


organizations,
 about
 his
 business


operations,
 and
 then
 into
 his


administration
 first
 year.
 And
 if
 you


want
 to
 know
 how
 badly
 that
 offended


Mr.
 Trump,
 you
 can
 just
 look
 at
 the


lawsuit
 that
 he
 filed
 against
 the
 Pulitzer


board
 a
 few
 years
 back,
 right?


>> And
 so
 this
 was
 an
 era
 of
 tremendous,


tremendous
 journalistic
 effort
 and


output.

</details>

**瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯**: 他们在发布影响新闻的重磅新闻。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Rachel Abrams**: >> They
 were
 breaking
 things
 that
 were


influencing
 the
 news.

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 是的，绝对是。而且在那几年里，《华盛顿邮报》还提出了一个著名的口号：“**民主在黑暗中消亡**”。>> 我记得>> 我认为那些年代表了贝索斯承诺的实现，一个巨大的成功时代。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: >> Yes,
 absolutely.
 And
 during
 those


years
 too,
 famously
 the
 Washington


Post
 came
 up
 with
 a
 new
 motto,


democracy
 dies
 in
 darkness.


>> I
 remember


>> I
 think
 those
 years
 represented
 Bezos's


promise
 fulfilled
 an
 era
 of
 tremendous


success.

</details>

### 商业模式的挑战与“特朗普热潮”

**瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯**: 那么，在这个新闻编辑室重振旗鼓的时期，它在商业方面表现如何？它赚钱吗？有策略吗？

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Rachel Abrams**: >> So
 during
 this
 period
 of
 what
 sounds


like
 a
 reinvigorated
 newsroom,


how
 was
 it
 doing
 on
 the
 business
 side?


Was
 it
 making
 money?
 Was
 there
 a


strategy?

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 是的。我的意思是，当然，战略的一部分是利用“**特朗普热潮**”。我们对此要诚实。但他们做了很多事情来改进产品。他们每个月都在增加订阅用户。在最初的特朗普时期，《邮报》据称是盈利的。但到了 2021-2022 年初，随着数字广告和受众的枯竭，情况急转直下。从新闻消费者的角度来看，这不是一个有趣的时间。白宫没有传来重大新闻，无论是在周六早上还是其他时间。所以，新闻少了，危机少了，关注度少了，点击量少了。这对《邮报》的业务产生了巨大影响，数字广告也出现了下滑。所以，你看到的是，《华盛顿邮报》开始年复一年地亏损大量资金，高达每年 1 亿美元。而令人不安的是，与数字广告和订阅相关的报纸系统性问题继续困扰着《华盛顿邮报》的账本。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: >> Yes.
 I
 mean,
 part
 of
 the
 strategy,
 of


course,
 was
 to
 ride
 the
 Trump


bump.
 Let's
 be
 honest
 about
 that.
 But


they
 did
 a
 lot
 of
 things
 to
 improve


the
 product.
 They
 were
 bringing
 on


more
 subscribers
 month
 after
 month.
 And


through
 those
 initial
 Trump
 years,


the
 post
 was
 allegedly
 profitable.
 But


that
 it
 fell
 off
 a
 cliff
 sort
 of
 in


the
 beginning
 of
 the
 Biden
 administration


2122
 when
 digital
 advertising
 sort
 of


dried
 up
 and
 audience
 dried
 up.
 It


was
 not
 as
 interesting
 a
 time
 uh


from
 the
 viewpoint
 of
 a
 news
 consumer.


There
 weren't
 major
 uh
 stories
 coming


out
 of
 the
 White
 House
 hour
 after


hour
 on
 a
 Saturday
 morning.


So
 that
 was
 less
 news


>> and
 less
 crisis
 and
 fewer
 eyeballs,


fewer
 clicks.
 That
 had
 a
 big
 impact


on
 the
 posts
 business
 and
 there
 was


also
 a
 slump
 in
 digital
 advertising
 to


boot.
 So
 what
 you
 have
 then
 is
 that


the
 Washington
 Post
 started
 losing
 a


lot
 of
 money
 year
 after
 year
 up
 to


like
 a
 hundred
 million
 dollars.
 And


the
 eerie
 sort
 of
 feeling
 you
 got


looking
 at
 this
 is
 that
 those


systemic
 problems
 with
 the
 newspaper


relating
 to
 digital
 advertising


subscribers,
 those
 problems
 continued


to
 haunt
 the
 Washington
 Post
 ledger.

</details>

**瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯**: 对。你说的基本上是，《华盛顿邮报》在特朗普当选后的几年里获得的关注，并不是因为新的战略或新的商业模式。这是对特朗普的回应。因此，特朗普热潮，也就是 2016 年大选后读者的大量涌入，掩盖了一个比任何人预想的都要棘手得多的难题。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Rachel Abrams**: >> Right.
 What
 you're
 saying
 is
 essentially


that
 the
 bump
 that
 the
 Washington


Post
 got
 in
 the
 years
 after
 Trump
 was


elected
 was
 not
 a
 response
 to
 a
 new


strategy
 of
 a
 new
 business
 model.
 It


was
 a
 response
 to
 Trump.
 And
 so


therefore,
 the
 Trump
 bump,
 this


enormous
 influx
 of
 readers
 right
 after


the
 election
 in
 2016,
 kind
 of


papered
 over
 an
 intractable
 problem


that
 was
 much
 more
 intractable
 than


perhaps
 anybody
 had
 anticipated.

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 是的，确实如此。这是我们以艰难的方式学到的。邮报从多年的盈利中走出来，然后事情开始变得不顺利，变得不顺利，受众也不够稳定，这意味着商业模式并不真正稳健。它无法应对非最佳状况。所以，《华盛顿邮报》的商业模式问题是如此严重，即使有一个管理团队做出reasonably明智和合乎逻辑的决定，报纸仍然会 struggling。但从 2024 年开始，杰夫·贝索斯采取了一系列措施，将一个问题变成了一场真正的危机。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: >> Yes,
 indeed.
 That
 is
 essentially


what
 we've
 learned
 kind
 of
 the
 hard
 way


that
 the
 post
 emerged
 from
 these
 years


of
 profitability
 and
 then
 this
 went
 a


little
 bit
 sideways,
 that
 went
 a
 little


bit
 sideways,
 the
 audience
 wasn't
 fully


there,
 which
 means
 that
 the
 business


model
 isn't
 really
 robust.
 It
 can't


handle
 anything
 less
 than
 optimal


circumstances.


So,
 the
 Washington
 Post's
 business


model
 problems
 were
 such
 that
 even
 if


you
 had
 a
 management
 team
 that
 was


making
 reasonably
 smart
 and
 logical


decisions,
 the
 paper
 would
 still
 be


struggling.


But
 starting
 in
 2024,


Jeff
 Bezos
 took
 a
 number
 of
 steps


that
 turned
 a
 problem
 into
 a
 genuine


crisis.

</details>

### 2024 年危机：编辑政策争议

**瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯**: [音乐] >> 我们马上回来。那么，埃里克，在休息之前，你提到邮报在 2024 年陷入了危机状态。我想我知道你在说什么，但请告诉我们发生了什么。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Rachel Abrams**: >> We'll
 be
 right
 back.


So,
 Eric,
 before
 the
 break,
 you


mentioned
 that
 the
 post
 in
 2024
 hit


the
 state
 of
 crisis.
 I
 think
 I
 know


what
 you're
 talking
 about,
 but
 tell
 us


what
 happened.

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 是的。2024 年发生的事情非常重要。选举的报道一如既往地进行。新闻部门在写文章，编辑部门在写社论和观点文章，一切都 [音乐] 进展顺利。现在，就像往常一样，在夏末或初秋，**《华盛顿邮报》**编辑委员会会开始起草并发布总统候选人的背书。嗯。>> 而这 [音乐] 是读者们期待的。但随着我们离选举越来越近，**《华盛顿邮报》**却没有任何社论发布。>> 没有发布任何内容。>> 没有发布任何内容。尽管编辑委员会的人们正在撰写，并且确实已经起草了一份支持 **卡玛拉·哈里斯**的背书。>> [鼻息声] 但在选举前 11 天，出版人**威尔·刘易斯**宣布了一项新政策。这项政策是，不在此次选举及今后的选举中发布背书。这被表述为政策转变，而不是某种政治决定。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: >> Yes.
 So,
 what
 happened
 in
 2024
 was


really
 significant.


The
 election
 proceeded
 with
 respect
 to


our
 coverage
 just
 as
 it
 always
 had.


[snorts]
 The
 news
 side
 was
 doing


its
 articles.
 The
 editorial
 side
 was


doing
 its
 editorials
 and
 its
 op-eds


and
 things
 were
 bumping
 along
 just


[music]
 fine.


Now,
 as
 usually
 happened,
 sometime
 in


late
 summer,
 early
 fall,
 the
 Washington


Post
 editorial
 board
 would
 begin


drafting
 and
 publish
 an
 endorsement


of
 one
 of
 the
 candidates
 in
 the


presidential
 race.
 Mhm.


>> And
 this
 [music]
 was
 something


that
 readers
 had
 come
 to
 expect.
 But


as
 we
 inched
 closer
 and
 closer
 to


the
 election,
 there
 was
 no
 editorial


coming
 forth
 from
 the
 Washington


Post.


>> Nothing
 was
 published.


>> Nothing
 was
 published.
 Even
 though


people
 on
 the
 editorial
 board
 were


working
 on
 one
 and
 indeed
 had


mustered
 a
 draft
 endorsement
 in
 favor


of
 uh
 Democratic
 candidate
 Kala


Harris.


[snorts]


But
 11
 days
 before
 the
 election,
 Will


Lewis,
 the
 publisher,
 announced
 that


there
 would
 be
 a
 new
 policy.
 And
 that


policy
 was
 to
 not
 publish
 endorsements


at
 all
 in
 this
 race
 and
 in
 future


races.
 It
 was
 articulated
 as
 a
 policy


shift
 and
 not
 as
 some
 sort
 of
 political


decision.

</details>

**瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯**: 是的。请稍微解释一下那时的反应。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Rachel Abrams**: >> Yeah.
 Explain
 the
 reaction
 to
 that
 a


little
 bit.

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 那是史诗级的。人们在《华盛顿邮报》上炸开了锅。你的意思是人们写信表达不满？>> 我们的数字消息平台 [音乐] 简直是火爆。它们非常繁忙。>> 而且人们立即用金钱回应，取消了订阅。**NPR** 报道称，在约 250 万订阅用户的基础上，取消了超过 25 万份订阅。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: >> It
 was
 epic.
 People
 went
 berserk
 on


the
 Washington
 Post.
 You
 mean
 people


were
 writing
 in
 expressing
 their
 displeasure?


>> Our
 digital
 messaging
 platforms
 were
 uh


a
 flame.
 They
 were
 very
 busy


>> and
 people
 answered
 immediately
 with


their
 money
 and
 they
 they
 canceled


their
 subscriptions.
 NPR
 reported
 that


there
 were
 in
 excess
 of
 250,000


cancellations
 of
 subscriptions
 against
 a


subscriber
 base
 that
 was
 about
 2.5


million
 at
 the
 time.


>> [music]

</details>

**瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯**: 埃里克，考虑到报纸老板传统上拥有影响社论页面的权利，为什么人们会有那样的反应？

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Rachel Abrams**: >> And
 Eric,
 why
 do
 people
 have
 that


kind
 of
 reaction
 given
 the
 fact
 that
 an


owner
 of
 a
 newspaper
 traditionally
 has


the
 right
 to
 influence
 the
 editorial


page?

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 是的，这传统上是业主的特权，并且已经在美国报业中确立了几十年。但这里特别有问题的是，并非贝索斯本身制定了一项新政策。问题在于它发生的时间以及之前发生了什么。它发生在选举前 11 天，而在此之前，《华盛顿邮报》已经准备好了一份支持卡玛拉·哈里斯的背书草稿。所以很多人就直接说：杰夫·贝索斯扼杀了哈里斯的社论。现在，《华盛顿邮报》的声明是为了阻止这种印象，但效果不佳。>> 而且相当一部分订阅用户似乎是因为这个取消背书的决定而取消订阅的。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: >> Yes,
 that's
 traditionally
 the


prerogative
 of
 owners
 and
 it's
 been


cemented
 for
 decades
 in
 American


newspapering.
 But
 what
 was
 particularly


problematic
 here
 was
 not
 necessarily


that
 Bezos
 had
 instituted
 a
 new
 policy


per
 se.
 The
 issue
 was
 when
 it
 happened


and
 what
 had
 preceded
 it.
 When
 it


happened
 was
 11
 days
 before
 the
 election


and
 what
 preceded
 it
 was
 that
 the


Washington
 Post
 had
 a
 draft
 endorsement


for
 Kla
 Harris
 in
 the
 hopper
 ready


to
 go.
 So
 many
 people
 just
 did


the
 shorthand
 and
 say
 Jeff
 Bezos


killed
 the
 Kla
 Harris
 editorial.
 Now


the
 Washington
 Post
 was
 statement


was
 written
 to
 kind
 of
 prevent


that
 impression
 from
 taking
 hold
 but


it
 wasn't
 very
 effective
 in
 doing


that


>> and
 not
 insignificant
 portion
 of


subscribers
 canled
 it
 seemed
 because
 of


this
 decision
 to
 pull
 the
 endorsement.

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 这里因果关系非常明确。这次下滑是因为这个决定。邮报的人们对此非常愤怒，并坚持认为他们不应为此损失负责。这是管理层的责任。他们应该承担后果，而不是通过削减、裁员、买断等方式强加给我们。我记得这一刻，这是人们在贝索斯收购报纸时担心会发生的事情的第一个最清晰的例子，那就是他会做出一个至少看起来像是屈服于权力的决定，在这种情况下，是给了当时的候选人特朗普一个礼物。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: >> There
 was
 no
 uncertainty
 about
 the
 cause


and
 effect
 here.
 None.
 This
 drop


happened
 because
 of
 this
 decision
 and


people
 at
 the
 post
 were
 livid
 about


it
 and
 they
 were
 also
 insistent


we
 should
 not
 be
 held
 liable
 for


this
 particular
 loss.
 This
 [snorts]
 one's


on
 management.
 They
 should
 take


the
 consequences
 of
 this
 awful


decision
 and
 not
 force
 it
 on
 us
 via


cutbacks,
 layoffs,
 buyouts,
 whatever.
 I


remember
 this
 moment
 as
 really
 the


first
 clearest
 example
 of
 something


happening
 that
 people
 had
 worried
 would


happen
 when
 Bezos
 bought
 the
 paper,


which
 is
 that
 he
 would
 make
 a


decision
 that
 at
 least
 seemed
 like


it
 was
 caving
 to
 power.
 In
 this


case,
 giving
 what
 seemed
 like
 a


gift
 to
 then
 candidate
 Trump.

</details>

**瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯**: 对。我想说，很多人都有同样的结论。当然，这并不是结束。仅仅几个月后，也就是 2025 年 2 月，贝索斯毫无征兆地宣布，《华盛顿邮报》的观点版块将转向个人自由和自由市场。这突然出现，人们再次得出结论，这是为了支持唐纳德·特朗普和共和党。然后，我认为在接下来的几个月里，人们的沮丧感加深了。我认为人们开始对领导层越来越不满，一些人选择了买断离开。其他人则选择离开，>> 包括你，对吗？

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Rachel Abrams**: >> Right.
 Well,
 you
 have
 a
 lot
 of
 company


in
 reaching
 that
 conclusion
 is
 all
 I


would
 say
 there.
 And
 of
 course,
 that


wasn't
 the
 end
 of
 it.
 Just
 months
 later


in
 February
 of
 2025,
 Bezos
 just
 out


of
 nowhere
 declared
 a
 pivot
 in
 the


Washington
 Post
 opinion
 sections


ideological
 outlook
 towards
 personal


liberties
 and
 free
 markets.
 And
 that


came
 out
 of
 the
 blue
 and
 again
 people


reached
 the
 conclusion
 that
 this
 was


a
 way
 of
 pivoting
 the
 opinion
 offerings


in
 favor
 of
 Donald
 Trump
 and
 the


GOP.
 And
 then
 I
 would
 say
 that


there
 was
 a
 a
 dismay
 that
 deepened


over
 the
 course
 of
 several
 months.
 I


think
 that
 there
 started
 to
 be
 a


growing
 dissatisfaction
 with
 leadership


and
 a
 number
 of
 people
 took
 a


buyout
 to
 leave.
 Other
 people


just
 chose
 to
 leave,


>> including
 you,
 right?

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 包括我。是我妻子拍了我一下，说：“醒醒吧，伙计。”因为我当时有点否认一切的走向。我想我们很多人都有同样的感受，我们在这家机构工作了这么久。它一直如此稳定，如此可靠，以至于我们不敢相信脚下的地面正在移动。但确实存在一种情绪，认为事情管理得不好，考虑不周。而这以前从未发生过。我认为这是导致许多人离开和不满的一个因素。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: >> Including
 me.
 That
 was
 uh
 my
 wife


who
 slapped
 me
 and
 said,
 \"Wake
 up,


bucko.\"
 Pretty
 much
 because
 I
 was
 sort


of
 in
 a
 state
 of
 denial
 about


where
 everything
 was
 headed.
 M


>> I
 think
 a
 lot
 of
 us
 had
 that


same
 sort
 of
 feeling
 that
 we
 had


been
 at
 this
 institution
 for
 so
 long.


It
 had
 been
 so
 steady,
 it
 had
 been


so
 reliable
 that
 we
 could
 not
 believe


that
 the
 ground
 was
 shifting
 underneath


our
 feet.
 But
 there
 is
 and
 was
 a


sentiment
 there
 that
 things
 were
 just


not
 very
 well
 managed
 and
 very


well
 thought
 through.
 And
 that
 had


never
 been
 the
 case
 before.
 And
 that


was
 I
 think
 the
 factor
 that
 drove


a
 lot
 of
 departures
 and
 drove
 a


lot
 of
 dissatisfaction.

</details>

### 背景联系与战略分析

**瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯**: 值得一提的是，我们谈论的这一切并非发生在真空中。特别是本周发生的裁员。杰夫·贝索斯刚刚支付了 7500 万美元给**梅拉尼娅·特朗普**控制的一家公司，用于一部纪录片。这是一笔巨款。这让很多人说，这无异于试图讨好政府的明显企图。亚马逊也是总统正在推进的东翼球场项目的顶级捐助者之一。而这一切都发生在一个对媒体前所未有的攻击时期，包括对《华盛顿邮报》的攻击，一名记者最近的家被**FBI**搜查。所以，我认为很多人可能正在听这段话，并听到了所有这些背景信息，并且正在思考当今世界以及新闻界正在发生的其他事情，他们想知道，我们正在谈论的这些削减是否与此背景有关？

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Rachel Abrams**: >> It
 feels
 worth
 noting
 that
 none
 of
 what


we
 are
 talking
 about
 is
 happening
 in
 a


vacuum.
 The
 layoffs
 in
 particular
 that


have
 happened
 this
 week.
 Jeff
 Bezos


just
 paid
 $75
 million
 to
 a
 company


controlled
 by
 Melania
 Trump,
 the
 first


lady,
 for
 a
 documentary.


It's
 an
 exorbitant
 amount
 of
 money.
 It's


caused
 a
 lot
 of
 people
 to
 say


that
 this
 is
 nothing
 short
 of
 a


transparent
 attempt
 to
 cozy
 up
 to
 the


administration.
 Amazon
 is
 also
 one


of
 the
 top
 donors
 to
 the
 Eastwing


Ballroom
 project
 the
 president
 has


pursued.
 And
 all
 of
 this
 is
 happening


at
 a
 time
 of
 unprecedented
 attacks


on
 the
 press,
 including
 at
 the


Washington
 Post,
 where
 a
 journalist


recently
 had
 her
 home
 searched
 by


the
 FBI.
 And
 so
 I
 think
 a


lot
 of
 people
 are
 probably
 listening


to
 this
 and
 have
 heard
 all
 of


this
 context
 and
 and
 are
 thinking


about
 all
 the
 other
 things
 going
 on


right
 now
 in
 the
 world
 and
 in


the
 world
 of
 journalism
 and


they're
 wondering
 do
 these
 cuts
 that


we
 are
 talking
 about
 fit
 into
 that


backdrop
 in
 any
 way.

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 我要说的是，如果你是为了取悦唐纳德·特朗普而削减新闻编辑室，那么这些削减本应是不同的。换句话说，它们会首先针对调查能力、政治版块、国家安全版块。《华盛顿邮报》的这些版块多年来对特朗普总统造成的损害最大。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: >> I
 am
 going
 to
 say
 if
 you
 are
 going


to
 cut
 a
 newsroom
 to
 please
 Donald


Trump
 in
 any
 way,
 I
 think
 that
 those


cuts
 would
 have
 been
 different.
 In
 other


words,
 they
 would
 have
 gone
 first


after
 the
 investigative
 capacity,
 the


politics
 desk,
 the
 national
 security


desk
 of
 the
 Washington
 Post.


Those
 desks
 have
 done
 the
 greatest


damage
 over
 the
 years
 to
 President


Trump.

</details>

**瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯**: 那么，你刚才提到的那些版块，说清楚点，它们是否仍然完好无损？

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Rachel Abrams**: >> And
 the
 desks
 that
 you
 just


outlined,
 to
 be
 clear,
 those
 are


remaining
 intact.

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 嗯，它们比被针对的版块更完整。管理层表示，削减影响了新闻编辑室的几乎所有领域，但都会区、体育和国际员工受到的影响最直接、最不成比例。所以我认为那种解读在这里不适用。我认为，更广泛的批评是，贝索斯正在摧毁他曾经支持、投资和扩张的新闻编辑室。这是对他投资的一种收回。就像一个回旋镖。所以，这对《华盛顿邮报》来说是一场灾难。这是一个重大的、重大的媒体故事。为什么要在你提到的国家安全、政治、调查这些版块上加倍投入？为什么这些版块是他和领导层寄予厚望的？

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: >> Well,
 those
 are
 remaining
 more
 intact


than
 the
 ones
 that
 they
 targeted.


management
 has
 said
 that
 the
 cuts


affect
 pretty
 much
 all
 areas
 of
 the


newsroom,
 but
 the
 most
 directly


affected.
 The
 most
 proportionately


deep
 cuts
 fell
 on
 the
 metro


sports
 and
 the
 international


staffs.
 So
 I
 don't
 think
 that
 that


particular
 read
 is
 operative
 here.
 The


broader
 critique
 at
 play,
 I
 think,


is
 just
 that
 Bezos
 is
 gutting
 the


newsroom
 that
 he
 once
 propped
 up


and
 that
 he
 once
 invested
 in
 and


that
 he
 expanded.
 So,


we're
 basically
 seeing
 a
 clawback


of
 the
 investment
 that
 he
 put
 into


the
 newsroom.
 It's
 basically
 like
 a


boomerang.
 So,
 that
 is
 kind
 of
 a


cataclysm
 at
 the
 Washington


Post.
 That
 is
 a
 major
 major


media
 story.


Why
 double
 down
 on
 the
 desks
 that


you
 mentioned,
 national
 security,


politics,
 investigations?
 Why
 are
 those


desks
 the
 ones
 that
 he
 and
 the


rest
 of
 the
 leadership
 are
 banking


on?

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 嗯，解释是这样的，他们通过查看数据、查看分析，找到了读者想要的内容，并减少了读者不想要的内容。嗯。>> 我们没有他们所有的分析数据，但这就是他们的理由。他们查看了分析数据，决定这是前进的方向，这是拯救机构的途径。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: >> Well,
 the
 explanation
 is
 that
 they


have
 found
 through
 looking
 at
 the


data,
 through
 looking
 at
 the
 analytics,


the
 areas
 that
 readers
 want
 and


they've
 de-emphasized
 the
 ones
 that


readers
 don't
 want.
 Mhm.


>> We
 don't
 have
 all
 their
 analytics,


but
 that's
 the
 rationale
 that
 they


looked
 at
 the
 analytics,
 they
 decided


that
 this
 was
 the
 way
 to
 go
 and


that
 this
 was
 the
 route
 to
 saving


the
 institution.

</details>

**瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯**: 通过收缩来拯救机构，是吗？

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Rachel Abrams**: >> Saving
 by
 shrinking
 the
 institution,


though.

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 是的。>> 我可以理解为什么会想在核心产品上加倍投入。但我想引用杰夫·贝索斯在收购报纸时说的话：“你不能一直缩小业务。你可以盈利但同时缩小，这是一种生存策略，但最终最多只会导致无关紧要，最坏的情况是导致灭绝。”那么，这与只专注于少数核心领域的想法如何相符呢？

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: >> Yes,


>> I
 can
 understand
 why
 that
 might
 make


sense
 to
 double
 down
 on
 what
 you


believe
 to
 be
 your
 core
 product.
 But
 I


want
 to
 read
 you
 something
 that
 Jeff


Bezos
 said
 when
 he
 bought
 the
 paper.


I
 don't
 think
 you
 can
 keep
 shrinking


the
 business.
 You
 can
 be
 profitable


and
 shrinking
 and
 that's
 a
 survival


strategy,
 but
 it
 ultimately
 leads


to
 irrelevance
 at
 best
 and
 at


worst
 it
 leads
 to
 extinction.
 So


how
 does
 that
 square
 if
 it
 squares


at
 all
 with
 the
 idea
 of
 doubling


down
 on
 just
 those
 few
 core


areas?

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 嗯，我认为其中有一些逻辑。邮报在这些领域取得了巨大的成功。问题是，他们正在削减人们过去喜欢的东西。而当一家报纸进行削减时，就会出现用户流失。而这种流失基本上会降低他们的收入。订阅用户离开。数字广告商看不到他们想与之相邻的内容。于是你就陷入了一种行业内人士称之为“**死亡螺旋**”的境地：削减产品，人们流失，收入下降，进一步削减，人们流失，进一步削减，如此循环。而且没有任何保证，《邮报》不会陷入其中之一。>> 嗯。>> 因为这是一个悬而未决的问题，即加倍投入这些领域是否能支撑起商业模式。没有任何保证它会成功。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: >> Well,
 I
 do
 think
 that
 there
 is
 some


logic
 there
 and
 that
 is
 that
 the
 post


has
 had
 a
 tremendous
 run
 in
 these


areas.
 The
 problem
 is
 that
 they
 are


cutting
 all
 kinds
 of
 stuff
 that
 people


have
 enjoyed
 in
 the
 past.
 And
 whenever


a
 newspaper
 cuts,


there
 is
 a
 desertion.


And
 that
 desertion
 basically
 lowers


their
 revenue.
 It
 cuts
 into
 their


revenue
 because
 subscribers
 leave.


Digital
 advertisers
 don't
 see
 as
 much


content
 they
 want
 to
 be
 adjacent
 to.
 And


so
 you
 get
 into
 sort
 of
 a
 spiral


which
 people
 in
 the
 industry
 call


a
 death
 spiral
 where
 you
 cut
 the


product,


>> people
 desert
 the
 paper,
 revenues


go
 down,
 you
 cut
 more,
 people


desert,
 you
 cut
 more
 and
 and


and
 it's
 a
 self-reinforcing
 cycle


and
 it's
 misery.


And
 there
 is
 no
 guarantee
 whatsoever


that
 the
 post
 is
 not
 descending


into
 one
 of
 those
 spirals.


>> Mhm.


>> Because
 there
 is
 an
 open
 question


as
 to
 whether
 doubling
 down
 on


these
 areas
 is
 going
 to
 float
 the


business
 model.
 There
 is
 just
 no


guarantee
 that
 it
 will.

</details>

### 马蒂·巴伦的声明与未来展望

**瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯**: 我想再读一段话，埃里克，这是**马蒂·巴伦**周三的声明。马蒂·巴伦，《华盛顿邮报》前执行主编，他的声明说：“《华盛顿邮报》的雄心将大大减弱。它才华横溢、勇敢的员工队伍将进一步削弱，公众将无法获得我们社区和世界各地所需的、比以往任何时候都更重要的、基于事实的基层报道。看看你所概述的所有削减，看看人们的反应，无论是内部还是外部，他们都在用我提到的末世论的术语来谈论这件事，你认为我们可以说些什么关于《邮报》做我们期望并依赖的报道的能力？

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Rachel Abrams**: >> I
 want
 to
 read
 you
 one
 more
 thing,


Eric,
 and
 this
 is
 a
 quote
 from
 Marty


Baron's
 statement
 on
 Wednesday.
 Marty


Baron,
 former
 executive
 editor
 of
 the


Washington
 Post,
 and
 his
 statement


says,


\"The
 Washington
 Post's
 ambitions


will
 be
 sharply
 diminished.
 Its
 talented


and
 brave
 staff
 will
 be
 further


depleted,
 and
 the
 public
 will
 be


denied
 the
 ground
 level
 fact-based


reporting
 in
 our
 communities
 and


around
 the
 world
 that
 is
 needed


more
 than
 ever.
 Looking
 at
 all


the
 cuts
 that
 you've
 outlined,


looking
 at
 the
 reaction
 from
 people


both
 inside
 and
 outside
 the
 post,


talking
 about
 this
 in,
 as
 I
 mentioned,


apocalyptic
 terms,
 what
 do
 you
 think


we
 can
 say
 about
 the
 Post's
 ability


to
 do
 the
 kind
 of
 journalism
 we


have
 come
 to
 expect
 and
 rely


on
 from
 this
 paper?

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 嗯，我想说，我们绝不能低估那里的记者的能力。当一个故事出现时，他们会去报道，他们会继续调查。他们会继续发布重磅新闻。他们会在新闻界继续表现出色。所以，人们 [音乐] 会继续。我将继续订阅《华盛顿邮报》，就像我几十年来一直做的那样。没有什么能让我停止订阅《华盛顿邮报》。我订阅了印刷版，我每天都读。即使在这场动荡中，我也每天都读。我每天都能在《华盛顿邮报》上找到很多东西可读。它不会停止生产真正好的新闻。>> [音乐] 会发生的是，我们将永远看不到他们没有人力去制作的内容。这将变得难以言喻，难以看见，无法量化。世界上会发生一些事情，《华盛顿邮报》没有资源或精力去发现。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: >> Well,
 I
 would
 say
 we
 should
 never


sell
 short


the
 abilities
 of
 the
 journalists


that
 are
 there.


When
 a
 story
 emerges,
 they
 will
 get


on
 it
 and
 they
 will
 continue


investigating.
 They
 will
 continue
 breaking


news.
 They
 will
 continue
 kicking
 ass


in
 journalism.


So,
 people
 [music]
 will
 continue.
 I


will
 continue
 to
 subscribe
 to
 the


Washington
 Post
 as
 I
 have
 for


decades.
 Nothing
 will
 make
 me
 ever


stop
 my
 subscription
 to
 the
 Washington


Post.
 I
 get
 it
 in
 print.
 I


read
 it
 every
 day.
 I've
 read
 it


through
 this
 tumult
 too.
 Every
 day


I
 find
 plenty
 to
 read
 in
 the


Washington
 Post.
 It
 will
 not
 stop


producing
 really
 good
 journalism.


[music]
 What
 will
 happen
 is,
 we


will
 never
 see
 the
 stuff
 that


they
 just
 don't
 have
 the
 manpower


to
 produce.
 So
 this
 becomes


something
 that
 is
 utterly
 ineffable,


utterly
 invisible
 and
 utterly


impossible
 to
 quantify.


That
 there'll
 be
 things
 going
 on


in
 the
 world
 that
 the
 Washington


Post
 does
 not
 have
 the
 resources


or
 the
 eyes
 to
 see
 through.


>> [music]


[music]

</details>

**瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯**: 埃里克·温普尔，非常感谢你的加入。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Rachel Abrams**: >> Eric
 Wimple,
 thank
 you
 so
 much


for
 joining
 us.

</details>

**埃里克·温普尔**: 嗯，谢谢你邀请我。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Eric Wemple**: >> Well,
 thank
 you
 for
 having
 me.

</details>

**瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯**: 我们马上 [音乐] 回来。今天还有其他你需要知道的事情。>> 我们目前有前所未有的数量的县与我们沟通，>> 并允许 ICE 在非法移民进入街道之前将其拘留。前所未有的合作。>> [音乐] 周三，总统的边境官员汤姆·霍尔曼说，在当地官员同意加强与联邦移民官员的合作后，政府将立即从明尼阿波利斯撤离 700 名官员。>> [音乐] 霍尔曼说，这种合作包括地方官员允许 ICE 官员 [音乐] 在嫌疑人被释放出狱前将其拘留。更多官员直接从监狱中拘留犯罪的外国人，意味着街头执行刑事行动的官员就少了。>> >> 而最高法院已经为加利福尼亚州使用一张新的国会地图铺平了道路 [音乐]，这张地图的设计目的是为了帮助民主党在今年秋季的中期选举中获胜。>> 法官们 [音乐] 拒绝了加州共和党阻止该地图的紧急请求。>> 民主党人 [音乐] 去年重新绘制了该州的国会选区，以应对共和党在德克萨斯州等州采取的类似行动。>> [音乐] >> 今天的节目由卡洛斯·普里奥、香农·林恩和埃里克·克鲁普基制作。>> 由德文·泰勒和莉兹·O·巴林编辑。>> 音乐由丹·鲍威尔、索菲亚 [音乐]·兰曼、黛安·王和罗恩·内米斯托提供。>> 并由克里斯·伍德设计。>> [音乐] >> 这就是今天的全部内容 [音乐]。我是瑞秋·艾布拉姆斯。明天见。

<details>
<summary>Original English</summary>

**Rachel Abrams**: >> We'll
 be
 [music]
 right
 back.


Here's


what
 else
 you
 need
 to
 know
 today.


>> We
 currently
 have
 an
 unprecedented


number
 of
 counties
 communicating
 with


us
 now
 [music]


and
 allowing
 ICE
 to
 take
 custody


of
 illegal
 aliens
 before
 they
 hit


the
 streets.
 Unprecedented


cooperation.
 [music]
 On
 Wednesday,


the
 president's
 borders
 are
 Tom


Holman,
 said
 the
 government
 would


immediately
 withdraw
 700
 officers


from
 Minneapolis
 [music]
 after
 local


officials
 agreed
 to
 increase
 their


cooperation
 with
 federal
 immigration


agents.
 The
 cooperation,


Hman
 said,
 involves
 local
 officials


allowing
 ICE
 agents
 [music]
 to
 take


custody
 of
 undocumented
 immigrants


before
 they
 are
 released
 from
 jail.


More
 officers
 taking
 custody
 of


criminal
 aliens
 directly
 from
 the


jails
 means
 less
 officers
 on
 the


street
 doing
 criminal
 operations.


>> And
 the
 Supreme
 Court
 has
 cleared


the
 way
 [music]
 for
 California
 to
 use


a
 new
 congressional
 map
 explicitly


designed
 to
 help
 Democrats
 in
 this


fall's
 midterm
 elections.


The
 justices
 [music]
 rejected
 an


emergency
 request
 by
 the
 California


Republican
 Party
 to
 block
 the


map.


Democrats
 [music]
 redrrew
 the
 state's


congressional
 districts
 last
 year
 to


counter
 a
 similar
 effort
 undertaken


by
 Republicans
 [music]
 at
 President


Trump's
 behest
 in
 states
 like


Texas.


Today's
 [music]
 episode
 was
 produced


by
 Carlos
 Prio,
 Shannon
 Lynn,
 and


Eric
 Krupkkey.
 It
 was
 edited
 by


Devin
 Taylor
 and
 Liz
 O
 Balin.


Contains
 music
 by
 Dan
 Powell,
 Sophia


[music]
 Lanman,
 Diane
 Wong,
 and


Rowan
 Nemisto.
 And
 was


engineered
 by
 Chris
 Wood.


>> [music]


>> That's
 it
 [music]
 for
 the
 daily.
 I'm


Rachel
 Abrams.
 See
 you
 tomorrow.

</details>