What does the sale of the Washington Post mean for print newspapers?

News broke yesterday that the Washington Post had been purchased for $250 million by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. According to the Washington Post, the newspaper has suffered a 44% decline in operating revenue over the last six years and a 7% circulation decline in the first half of 2013 alone.

The Washington Post enjoys a fairly strong digital presence, but the sale raises questions about the future of the print newspaper. In 2012, Bezos told a German newspaper that print would be dead in 20 years because no one would bother paying for news.

In a statement yesterday, however, Bezos said the Post is “an important institution” but added he does not have a “worked out plan” for the “unchartered territory” he has entered. He said the future of the Washington Post would require “experimentation.”

“So Bezos has just purchased the Washington Post,” Glenn said on radio this morning, “which I think is fantastic.”

“After saying that the print industry was dead just a couple of years ago,” Stu interjected. “I'm not arguing that necessarily. I'm just saying it's surprising that you'd spend $250 million on something [you think is dead].”

Glenn has made his opinions about the future of media well known, and, like Bezos, he believes that the print industry’s days are numbers. With that said, Glenn understands Bezos’ decision to purchase the paper.

“He is absolutely right about the print industry being dead and why he bought it. He spent $250 million to buy the logo, to buy the name, the Washington Post,” Glenn explained. “And he will fundamentally transform that and it will no longer be a newspaper probably in five years. It’s got to be his bet.”

The interesting thing, however, is how quickly the media landscape is changing. This year, digital usage has surpassed television usage for the first time in history. In 2010, people spent an average of 3 hours and 14 minutes using digital devices (i.e. online, mobile). In 2011 that average jumped to 3 hours 50 minutes. This year, digital consumption accounts for 5 hours and 9 minutes of a person’s day.

Television, meanwhile, has remained relatively steady going from an average of 4 hours and 24 minutes in 2010 to 4 hours and 31 minutes in 2013. Radio has witnessed a similar trend, dropping slightly from 4 hours and 36 minutes in 2010 to 4 hours and 26 minutes in 2013.

Bezos is clearly a very savvy businessman, but given the downward trajectory of the Washington Post in recent years and the tremendous culture shift toward digital media, Glenn questioned the value of the Washington Post brand in today’s world.

“I mean, you know, maybe he's right. He's much smarter than I am,” Glenn explained. “But he's looking at the name, which doesn't really mean anything to the next generation. The Washington Post means nothing. They don't care about Watergate. And what has the Washington Post done lately? The Washington Post – if they start to break real news – could be valuable, but the Washington Post doesn't mean anything. It means less to the American people than the New York Times does.”

Ultimately, Glenn believes the future lies in the value of the content, not the value of the brand.

“Here's a guy who's coming in. He's like, ‘I'm going to fix the media because I'm going to spend $250 million on this brand and I'm going to make sure that it's digitized.’ Well, who gives a flying crap if it's digitized, if it's digitized crap,” Glenn said. “I mean you don't get to be [someone like Bezos] without counting the money and caring about the money. If you have that kind of money, you have a profound responsibility to do something meaningful with that money. And Bezos is clearly so much smarter than, you know, any of the yahoos on this program and 10 times smarter than [me]. He knows what he's doing, but look at the content, not the delivery system.”

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck sat down with chief researcher Jason Buttrill to go over two bombshell developments that have recently come to light regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's role in the 2016 dismissal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"Wow! Two huge stories dropped within about 24 hours of each other," Jason began. He went on to explain that a court ruling in Ukraine has just prompted an "actual criminal investigation against Joe Biden in Ukraine."

This stunning development coincided with the release of leaked phone conversations, which took place in late 2015 and early 2016, allegedly among then-Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ukraine's former President Petro Poroshenko.

One of the audiotapes seems to confirm allegations of a quid pro quo between Biden and Poroshenko, with the later admitting that he asked Shokin to resign despite having no evidence of him "doing anything wrong" in exchange for a $1 billion loan guarantee.

"Poroshenko said, 'despite the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges on [Shokin], and we don't have any information about him doing something wrong, I asked him to resign,'" Jason explained. "But none of the Western media is pointing this out."

Watch the video below for more details:

Listen to the released audiotapes in full here.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

A recently declassified email, written by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and sent herself on the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration, reveals the players involved in the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and "unmasking" of then-incoming National Security Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn.

Rice's email details a meeting in the Oval Office on Jan 5, 2017, which included herself, former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former President Barack Obama. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, fully declassified the email recently amid President Trump's repeated references to "Obamagate" and claims that Obama "used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration."

On Glenn Beck's Wednesday night special, Glenn broke down the details of Rice's email and discussed what they reveal about the Obama administration officials involved in the Russia investigation's origins.

Watch the video clip below:

Fellow BlazeTV host, Mark Levin, joined Glenn Beck on his exclusive Friday episode of "GlennTV" to discuss why the declassified list of Obama administration officials who were aware of the details of Gen. Michael Flynn's wiretapped phone calls are so significant.

Glenn argued that Obama built a covert bureaucracy to "transform America" for a long time to come, and Gen. Flynn was targeted because he happened to know "where the bodies were buried", making him a threat to Obama's "secret legacy."

Levin agreed, noting the "shocking extent of the police state tactics" by the Obama administration. He recalled several scandalous happenings during Obama's "scandal free presidency," which nobody seems to remember.

Watch the video below for more:

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Colleges and universities should be home to a lively and open debate about questions both current and timeless, independent from a political bias or rules that stifle speech. Unfortunately for students, speaking out about personal beliefs or challenging political dogma can be a dangerous undertaking. I experienced this firsthand as an undergraduate, and I'm fighting that trend now as an adjunct professor.

In 2013, Glenn Beck was one of the most listened to radio personalities in the world. For a college senior with hopes of working on policy and media, a job working for Glenn was a ticket to big things. I needed a foot in the door and hoped to tap into the alumni network at the small liberal arts school where I was an undergrad. When I met with a career services specialist in early March 2013 about possible alumni connections to Glenn Beck, she disdainfully told me: "Why would you want to work for someone like him?" That was the beginning and end of our conversation.

I was floored by her response, and sent an email to the school complaining that her behavior was inappropriate. Her personal opinions, political or otherwise, I argued, shouldn't play a role in the decision to help students.

That isn't the kind of response a student should hear when seeking guidance and help in kick starting their career. Regardless of the position, a career specialist or professors' opinion or belief shouldn't be a factor in whether the student deserves access to the alumni network and schools' resources.

Now, seven years later, I work full time for a law firm and part time as an adjunct teaching business to undergraduate students. The culture at colleges and universities seems to have gotten even worse, unfortunately, since I was an undergrad.

College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions.

I never want to see a student told they shouldn't pursue their goals, regardless of their personal or political beliefs. College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions. I never got access to the alumni network or schools' resources from the career services office.

Lucky for students in 2020, there are several legal organizations that help students protect their rights when an issue goes beyond what can be handled by an undergraduate facing tremendous pressure from a powerful academic institution. Organizations like Speech First and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), for instance, are resources I wish I knew about at the time.

When I experienced mistreatment from my college, I spoke up and challenged the behavior by emailing the administration and explaining what happened. I received a letter from the career services specialist apologizing for the "unprofessional comment."

What she described in that apology as a "momentary lapse of good judgement" was anything but momentary. It was indicative of the larger battle for ideas that has been happening on college campuses across the country. In the past seven years, the pressure, mistreatment and oppression of free expression have only increased. Even right now, some are raising concerns that campus administrations are using the COVID-19 pandemic to limit free speech even further. Social distancing guidelines and crowd size may both be used to limit or refuse controversial speakers.

Students often feel pressure to conform to a college or university's wishes. If they don't, they could be expelled, fail a class or experience other retribution. The college holds all the cards. On most campuses, the burden of proof for guilt in student conduct hearings is "more likely than not," making it very difficult for students to stand up for their rights without legal help.

As an adjunct professor, every student who comes to me for help in finding purpose gets my full support and my active help — even if the students' goals run counter to mine. But I have learned something crucial in my time in this role: It's not the job of an educator to dictate a student's purpose in life. I'm meant to help them achieve their dreams, no matter what.

Conner Drigotas is the Director of Communications and Development at a national law firm and is a Young Voices contributor.