Bezos Backlash: Leftists Cancel WaPo…but not Amazon
October 31, 2024_.png)
Key Takeaways
- Left-leaning Americans are canceling their “Washington Post” subscriptions in protest to owner Jeff Bezos barring the newspaper from endorsing Harris.
- Many frame their cancelation as voter empowerment and ethical consumerism, yet they justify keeping Amazon Prime—also owned by Jeff Bezos—for convenience.
- Cognitive dissonance emerges as users cope with ideological contradictions, balancing ethical concerns for WaPo with practical loyalty to Amazon.
- A trend of selective outrage shows emotional opposition to WaPo, with little more action than a symbolic unsubscribe.
Our Methodology
Demographics
Liberals
Sample Size
5,000
Geographical Breakdown
National
Time Period
4 Days
MIG Reports leverages EyesOver technology, employing Advanced AI for precise analysis. This ensures unparalleled precision, setting a new standard. Find out more about the unique data pull for this article.
Left-leaning Americans are angrily canceling their “Washington Post” subscriptions to the tune of 250,000—though apparently not their Amazon Prime accounts. Following a controversy in which WaPo and Amazon owner Jeff Bezos barred the newspaper from making a presidential endorsement.
UPDATE: The number of cancellations since Friday’s revelation now exceeds 250,000, NPR can report.
— David Folkenflik (@davidfolkenflik) October 29, 2024
That represents approximately 10 percent of all paid circulation. https://t.co/XrDDWR3Vt5
The contradiction in liberal outcry against Bezos reveals the tension between stated ideals and real-life consumer choices. Americans are disillusioned with mainstream media and left leaning voters are showing their dissatisfaction by unsubscribing.
However, many on the right are pointing out various coping mechanisms and the selective outrage they see among liberals. They point out members of the media like Jennifer Rubin who criticized LA Times reporters who did not resign after the paper also made no endorsement. Rubin, who works for WaPo, has yet to resign.
Jennifer Rubin @JRubinBlogger cheered a reporter who quit in response to the LA times not endorsing either presidential canidate. She works for the Washington post which is also not endorsing this election let's reminder her that she is a hypocrite unless she resigns immediately pic.twitter.com/2mvpNBzS6N
— Steve (@Steve113875651) October 25, 2024
Unsub from WaPo
Liberals often frame their decision to cancel their “Washington Post” as personal empowerment and ethical consumerism. They invoke, “taking a stand,” “voting with my wallet,” and “demanding truth.” Many are disillusioned with WaPo, using terms like “biased reporting” and “supporting ethical journalism” to validate their choice to unsubscribe.
Won’t Cancel Prime
However, there is deafening silence on the same activists canceling their Amazon Prime memberships. They justify this with practical language emphasizing convenience and necessity, such as “just too good to give up” and “I can’t live without my Prime.” This rationalization for keeping services that contradict their activism suggests a kind of opportunistic hypocrisy.
_.png)
Language Analysis
Coping Mechanisms
Among those outraged about Jeff Bezos’s decision regarding WaPo endorsements, there is tendency toward self-justification. They use rationalizing phrases like “we deserve better,” portraying canceling subscriptions as a principled choice. This hints at cognitive dissonance, where values are flexible depending on convenience.
Hypocrisy Indicators
There’s a noticeable double standard where users critique WaPo for perceived corporate media bias yet justify Amazon Prime as essential, despite Amazon’s controversial practices.
Phrases like “corporate monsters are everywhere” reflect a resignation to the omnipresence of corporate influence, exposing a discrepancy between ideological intentions and consumer behavior. This focus suggests an emotional, issue-based hierarchy in which certain values can be sidelined based on the perceived relevance of the company involved.
An Amazon warehouse worker's 'thank you' bag for working Prime Big Deal Days earlier this month pic.twitter.com/PAEADIQvSs
— Michael Sainato (@msainat1) October 29, 2024
Owning the Narrative
Many express a need for narratives that align with their personal values, reflecting a belief that media consumption should ideologically agree with readers. This causes a pattern of binary thinking where WaPo is labeled as becoming antagonistic to liberal values, while Amazon is a practical tool divorced from these political concerns.
Cognitive dissonance is a recurring theme as liberals openly struggle to reconcile their ideals with convenience. The discussions highlight how modern consumer habits complicate the pursuit of ideological purity, as practicality frequently overrides principles.
Performative Activism
Some describe their WaPo cancellation as part of “cancel culture” or an act of visibility rather than a purely ethical stance. This suggests it’s either performative or rhetorical. For some, canceling WaPo is less about values and more about participating in visible, symbolic acts.
In voter discussions around 75% of comments are negative toward WaPo, while Amazon Prime discussion is mostly neutral or slightly positive. This difference underscores a greater discontent with media credibility than corporate ethics, suggesting a prioritization of ideological alignment over ethical consistency.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
_.png)
_.png)
_.png)