What is not within his rights is consequences. People drop their subscriptions. He doesn't get to control that.
Yeah, it's an odd angle - they're cancelling because they don't like what he's doing with the paper, the product that they were buying. What you are legally allowed to do, and what your customers will tolerate you doing before they stop being your customers, are two entirely different things.
However much I might dislike him...Jeff has a family, friends, and employees. Trying to preserve that status quo is not a reprehensible decision.
Hmmm...same argument for German industrialists back in 1933?
Has Jeff been endorsing and generously donating to Mr. T of late? If not, "Apple" != "Orange".
It's unclear he's preserved any of them by this decision.
What status quo is being preserved?
But destroying editorial independence of a newspaper is, at least if you have any real interest in the credibility of the newspaper.
I think the fact that you can find 50% of the people that think he screwed it up, and 50% of people that think he did the right thing. That pretty much should tell you all you need to know.
I think you're a bit off. NPR reported 200K subscriptions cancelled, when WaPo was happy about a 4K subscription increase this calendar year, and a subscription base of 2.5M.
One decision cost them 50x their 2024 gain in subs.
Where are you pulling these numbers from? This is an entirely content-free, flame-bait comment.