WaPo is dependent on subscription revenue, which is more than 2/3rd of their revenue.
Advertising revenue is less than a 1/3rd of their revenue, and dropping fast. Ad revenue from more than 50 million visitors is less than subscription revenue from 2.5 million subscribers.
If WaPo was dependent on ads, they would have taken steps to increase accessibility to articles, but they didn't and haven't. Instead, they're restricting more and more content to subscribers, because ultimately subscribers are the ones that keep the lights on.
In no world is a third of revenue a "small fraction", especially with such big losses, so you won't be able to argue out of this simple fact that it's dependent on ads.
> and dropping fast,
Just like the number of subscribers and subscription revenue?
They're also owned by one of the richest men in the world...