The Washington Post’s attempt to court conservative readers is backfiring spectacularly. Former fact-checker Glenn Kessler, after 27 years at the paper, warns that chasing Fox News viewers could torch its loyal liberal base. His concerns, aired on Substack, highlight a risky shift under new leadership.
Fox News reported that CEO Will Lewis and owner Jeff Bezos are steering The Post toward a new editorial mission. In a February 2024 overhaul, Bezos pushed for a focus on personal liberties and free markets. This directive, coupled with halting a planned endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris, sparked a subscriber exodus.
Kessler’s departure followed a revealing hour-long meeting with Lewis in April 2024. Lewis, new to the CEO role, pressed Kessler on how to appeal to conservative audiences.
The question stunned Kessler, who saw it as blurring the line between business and newsroom priorities.
“What should The Post do to appeal more to Fox News viewers?” Lewis asked, according to Kessler. The query betrays a fundamental misstep—ignoring the paper’s predominantly liberal readership.
Kessler’s anecdotal evidence, drawn from reader reactions to his fact-checking, confirms this demographic reality. When Kessler fact-checked Democrats, angry emails flooded in. Fact-checks on Republicans? Crickets.
This imbalance underscores the challenge of broadening The Post’s appeal without alienating its core audience.
Bezos’ new mission for the editorial pages prioritizes personal liberties and free markets. This shift, Kessler argues, stifles debate by sidelining liberal voices. The directive risks turning the opinion section into an echo chamber, a move that’s anything but balanced.
The decision to nix the Harris endorsement was a tipping point. Hundreds of thousands of liberal subscribers canceled, fed up with the paper’s rightward lurch. The backlash exposed the fragility of The Post’s reader loyalty.
Internal unrest followed, with staffers resigning in protest. The newsroom, already on edge, bristled at Bezos’ mandate to avoid pieces opposing his free-market vision. Such top-down control feels more like corporate overreach than journalistic integrity.
“I don’t understand the idea of eliminating liberal voices from the editorial page,” Kessler said. He’s right—newspapers thrive on debate, not uniformity. Suppressing diverse perspectives betrays the very principles of a free press that The Post claims to uphold.
Kessler’s advice to students—read those you disagree with—highlights the value of intellectual challenge. “Follow people or read people you disagree with because you’re going to learn much more,” he said. The Post’s new direction risks forsaking this wisdom for a one-sided narrative.
“It’s literally like trying to change engines on an airplane mid-flight,” Kessler quipped. The metaphor captures the chaos of rebranding a liberal bastion as conservative-friendly. It’s a gamble that could crash and burn.
The Post’s opinion pages have long featured conservative voices like Marc Thiessen and Charles Krauthammer. Yet, Kessler argues, the current shift goes too far, alienating readers who expect a broader spectrum of views. Balance, not bias, should guide the editorial mission.
“The Washington Post is committed to producing high-quality journalism,” a spokesperson claimed. But platitudes won’t soothe subscribers who feel betrayed. The paper’s pivot seems more like pandering than a genuine attempt at fairness.
Kessler warned that news reports must avoid any “liberal lens” to maintain credibility. Easier said than done when 75-80% of readers lean left. The Post’s leadership faces a tightrope walk—appeal to conservatives without losing the base that pays the bills.
