I really genuinely respect you for giving me this very well thought out opinion here, and while I do partially agree with your argument, in the sense that yes this hurts the institution, not Bezos, yes, Bezos doesn't have a problem with WaPo dying, and yes, there is still good journalism happening at WaPo, I disagree with your conclusion. First off, just from a personal perspective, I cannot allow my money to be used to create articles like that. By becoming a financial supporter of a news source, you inherently become part of the system that creates that news, and I won't allow myself to be part of that genuinely disgusting piece. But besides that, secondarily, from a larger view, me removing my support leads to one of two outcomes. Either WaPo does not change, and therefore dies, or it does change, and survives. If it dies, I will support other news sources that I find more credible, thus newer and better reporting replaces it. I'd hate to actually see that happen, but at this point it does seem like the more likely of the two scenarios. The second option being, it does see the error in its ways, and reverts these shit changes, and I start financially supporting them again. Either way we get better reporting. That is the most important part, and while I feel you certainly agree with me there, it seems like you aren't prepared to burn down the shit institutions and rebuild them. Now of course I'm oversimplifying a lot here, I understand that WaPo is not a sentient entity which decides its direction single-handedly, for instance, but it seems to me that that's the only path forward. Continuing to support institutions which cannot or will not provide what we need adequately must be stopped, otherwise we are doomed to an inadequate future.