Everyone is gone at the Washington Post... Almost no Metro section left...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actual headline in today’s Post. NOT the Onion. I’m going to reduce my carbon footprint by canceling my subscription.

“Indoor houseplants come with a cost to the planet. Here’s how to minimize it.”

The article is at least good for a laugh:

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t grow potted plants, according to Susan Pell, the director of the U.S. Botanic Garden in Washington, D.C. But she has a few tips for minimizing the environmental harm of indoor gardening.

“Every little thing we do adds up collectively, so if all of us are doing these things, the collective impact is quite large,”

One little thing I do to help the planet is to park at the end of my driveway to save a few drops of gas. If everyone did this, it would collectively add up and have a large impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post had to cut back on spending, but I think they went about it the wrong way. They offered buyouts and guess who took them -- the skilled reporters who can easily get a job elsewhere. Then you're left with a bunch of second stringers.

The second stringers didn't take buyouts because they know they're not easily employable elsewhere. For example, the front page currenty has an article about where they tested if you need to wash your dishes before putting them in the dishwasher -- leave that to Consumer Reports or Mythbusters. Or 13 Tips to make your job less stressful -- leave that to Buzzfeed.

WP should focus on local news, and politics as those are their niche areas where they can excel.

Such a weird take

Most of the really, really good journalists have been out of the industry for 10-15 yrs. Yes, some great ones remained, but the vast majority of the skilled reporters have been gone for awhile. Not just at the Post, but everywhere.

The ones who’ve been hanging on at the Post are ones who either truly cannot imagine another line of work - a life outside of journalism - or have unsuccessfully tried to make a lateral move to another field and it hasn’t worked.

The claim that scores of highly talented people recently left the Post to easily find other jobs in journalism is nuts. There are like four quality journalism jobs left. These people have nowhere to go.

And the buzzfeed-style stuff in WashPo is not because of “second string reporters.” They could send inexperienced interns to cover the white house and supreme court if they wanted. The paper decided they want writers (of any level/talent/experience) writing about dishwashers. So you are getting articles about dishwashers.

True

But WaPo really lost the plot. There are good journalists out there, even young ones.

But WaPo abandoned Metro, Sports[b], and Style. Their Opinion page is boring and predictable.

There are maybe three national and international correspondents worth paying attention to.
Meanwhile, the NY Times has some great recipes. Good tech stuff. Plus the good reporting.

Much better product. Same with WSJ. And the Financial Times.

WaPo has decided to go very down market.

It's too bad. It was a very good brand not that long ago. But, not interesting these days.

How has the Post "abandoned" its sports coverage? Please, be specific. It was the only desk not targeted for buyouts and is far better than the NYT sports section, which seems to target its stories toward country-club squash players, and the WSJ sports section, which is like one dude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post had to cut back on spending, but I think they went about it the wrong way. They offered buyouts and guess who took them -- the skilled reporters who can easily get a job elsewhere. Then you're left with a bunch of second stringers.

The second stringers didn't take buyouts because they know they're not easily employable elsewhere. For example, the front page currenty has an article about where they tested if you need to wash your dishes before putting them in the dishwasher -- leave that to Consumer Reports or Mythbusters. Or 13 Tips to make your job less stressful -- leave that to Buzzfeed.

WP should focus on local news, and politics as those are their niche areas where they can excel.

Such a weird take

Most of the really, really good journalists have been out of the industry for 10-15 yrs. Yes, some great ones remained, but the vast majority of the skilled reporters have been gone for awhile. Not just at the Post, but everywhere.

The ones who’ve been hanging on at the Post are ones who either truly cannot imagine another line of work - a life outside of journalism - or have unsuccessfully tried to make a lateral move to another field and it hasn’t worked.

The claim that scores of highly talented people recently left the Post to easily find other jobs in journalism is nuts. There are like four quality journalism jobs left. These people have nowhere to go.

And the buzzfeed-style stuff in WashPo is not because of “second string reporters.” They could send inexperienced interns to cover the white house and supreme court if they wanted. The paper decided they want writers (of any level/talent/experience) writing about dishwashers. So you are getting articles about dishwashers.

True

But WaPo really lost the plot. There are good journalists out there, even young ones.

But WaPo abandoned Metro, Sports, and Style. Their Opinion page is boring and predictable.

There are maybe three national and international correspondents worth paying attention to.
Meanwhile, the NY Times has some great recipes. Good tech stuff. Plus the good reporting.

Much better product. Same with WSJ. And the Financial Times.

WaPo has decided to go very down market.

It's too bad. It was a very good brand not that long ago. But, not interesting these days.

How has the Post "abandoned" its sports coverage? Please, be specific. It was the only desk not targeted for buyouts and is far better than the NYT sports section, which seems to target its stories toward country-club squash players, and [b]the WSJ sports section, which is like one dude.

While the WSJ sports section is like "one dude", he manages to write far more entertaining and insightful articles than anything in the Washington Post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post had to cut back on spending, but I think they went about it the wrong way. They offered buyouts and guess who took them -- the skilled reporters who can easily get a job elsewhere. Then you're left with a bunch of second stringers.

The second stringers didn't take buyouts because they know they're not easily employable elsewhere. For example, the front page currenty has an article about where they tested if you need to wash your dishes before putting them in the dishwasher -- leave that to Consumer Reports or Mythbusters. Or 13 Tips to make your job less stressful -- leave that to Buzzfeed.

WP should focus on local news, and politics as those are their niche areas where they can excel.

Such a weird take

Most of the really, really good journalists have been out of the industry for 10-15 yrs. Yes, some great ones remained, but the vast majority of the skilled reporters have been gone for awhile. Not just at the Post, but everywhere.

The ones who’ve been hanging on at the Post are ones who either truly cannot imagine another line of work - a life outside of journalism - or have unsuccessfully tried to make a lateral move to another field and it hasn’t worked.

The claim that scores of highly talented people recently left the Post to easily find other jobs in journalism is nuts. There are like four quality journalism jobs left. These people have nowhere to go.

And the buzzfeed-style stuff in WashPo is not because of “second string reporters.” They could send inexperienced interns to cover the white house and supreme court if they wanted. The paper decided they want writers (of any level/talent/experience) writing about dishwashers. So you are getting articles about dishwashers.

True

But WaPo really lost the plot. There are good journalists out there, even young ones.

But WaPo abandoned Metro, Sports[b], and Style. Their Opinion page is boring and predictable.

There are maybe three national and international correspondents worth paying attention to.
Meanwhile, the NY Times has some great recipes. Good tech stuff. Plus the good reporting.

Much better product. Same with WSJ. And the Financial Times.

WaPo has decided to go very down market.

It's too bad. It was a very good brand not that long ago. But, not interesting these days.

How has the Post "abandoned" its sports coverage? Please, be specific. It was the only desk not targeted for buyouts and is far better than the NYT sports section, which seems to target its stories toward country-club squash players, and the WSJ sports section, which is like one dude.

Sports coverage is dropping off everywhere. It's part of the anti white man agenda WAMU, DC's local NPR station, pretty much stopped covering baseball. Women's soccer gets top of the hour, in depth , attention though. It's hilarious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow - this thread is so timely for me! my last straw with WaPo was seeing this headline two days ago:

Resignation at Harvard latest but not last salvo in GOP war on colleges
Claudine Gay’s resignation as president seen as emblematic by some of political pressure on higher education

because she is a black woman, she did no wrong and is the victim, and it's all the Republicans' fault.

You don’t think this was an orchestrated attempt by right-wingers with selective outrage about academic integrity? The ringleader of which had a personal axe to grind because she was kicked off Harvard’s senior advisory committee because of her seditious behavior in 2021?

I guess Gays numerous incidents of plagiarism played no role.
Your post is laughable, thanks!

[Anonymous]

Hadn't heard of DC City Cast, will check it out. Thanks, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post had to cut back on spending, but I think they went about it the wrong way. They offered buyouts and guess who took them -- the skilled reporters who can easily get a job elsewhere. Then you're left with a bunch of second stringers.

The second stringers didn't take buyouts because they know they're not easily employable elsewhere. For example, the front page currenty has an article about where they tested if you need to wash your dishes before putting them in the dishwasher -- leave that to Consumer Reports or Mythbusters. Or 13 Tips to make your job less stressful -- leave that to Buzzfeed.

WP should focus on local news, and politics as those are their niche areas where they can excel.

Such a weird take

Most of the really, really good journalists have been out of the industry for 10-15 yrs. Yes, some great ones remained, but the vast majority of the skilled reporters have been gone for awhile. Not just at the Post, but everywhere.

The ones who’ve been hanging on at the Post are ones who either truly cannot imagine another line of work - a life outside of journalism - or have unsuccessfully tried to make a lateral move to another field and it hasn’t worked.

The claim that scores of highly talented people recently left the Post to easily find other jobs in journalism is nuts. There are like four quality journalism jobs left. These people have nowhere to go.

And the buzzfeed-style stuff in WashPo is not because of “second string reporters.” They could send inexperienced interns to cover the white house and supreme court if they wanted. The paper decided they want writers (of any level/talent/experience) writing about dishwashers. So you are getting articles about dishwashers.

True

But WaPo really lost the plot. There are good journalists out there, even young ones.

But WaPo abandoned Metro, Sports[b], and Style. Their Opinion page is boring and predictable.

There are maybe three national and international correspondents worth paying attention to.
Meanwhile, the NY Times has some great recipes. Good tech stuff. Plus the good reporting.

Much better product. Same with WSJ. And the Financial Times.

WaPo has decided to go very down market.

It's too bad. It was a very good brand not that long ago. But, not interesting these days.

How has the Post "abandoned" its sports coverage? Please, be specific. It was the only desk not targeted for buyouts and is far better than the NYT sports section, which seems to target its stories toward country-club squash players, and the WSJ sports section, which is like one dude.

Sports coverage is dropping off everywhere. It's part of the anti white man agenda WAMU, DC's local NPR station, pretty much stopped covering baseball. Women's soccer gets top of the hour, in depth , attention though. It's hilarious.

Yes, because people were going to WAMU for baseball coverage. On what earth are you living? Stick to your safe space at Fox News and you'll be fine, snowflake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow - this thread is so timely for me! my last straw with WaPo was seeing this headline two days ago:

Resignation at Harvard latest but not last salvo in GOP war on colleges
Claudine Gay’s resignation as president seen as emblematic by some of political pressure on higher education

because she is a black woman, she did no wrong and is the victim, and it's all the Republicans' fault.

You don’t think this was an orchestrated attempt by right-wingers with selective outrage about academic integrity? The ringleader of which had a personal axe to grind because she was kicked off Harvard’s senior advisory committee because of her seditious behavior in 2021?

I guess Gays numerous incidents of plagiarism played no role.
Your post is laughable, thanks!

So where was this crew of saviors of the academy when Marc Tessier-Levigne was found to have falsified his research and resigned from Stanford over the summer?

As I said, selective outrage. Gee, I wonder WHY they chose Gay to agitate about?

I love that Ackman's wife was called out for similar plagiarism and he rushed to her defense. When will she resign?

I want to see all of Stefanik's undergraduate papers. If there's any evidence of plagiarism in them, I will demand her degree be rescinded. She should have been expelled from Congress already for being a traitor to the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow - this thread is so timely for me! my last straw with WaPo was seeing this headline two days ago:

Resignation at Harvard latest but not last salvo in GOP war on colleges
Claudine Gay’s resignation as president seen as emblematic by some of political pressure on higher education

because she is a black woman, she did no wrong and is the victim, and it's all the Republicans' fault.

You don’t think this was an orchestrated attempt by right-wingers with selective outrage about academic integrity? The ringleader of which had a personal axe to grind because she was kicked off Harvard’s senior advisory committee because of her seditious behavior in 2021?

[/

I guess Gays numerous incidents of plagiarism played no role.
Your post is laughable, thanks!

So where was this crew of saviors of the academy when Marc Tessier-Levigne was found to have falsified his research and resigned from Stanford over the summer?

As I said, selective outrage. Gee, I wonder WHY they chose Gay to agitate about?

I love that Ackman's wife was called out for similar plagiarism and he rushed to her defense. When will she resign?

I want to see all of Stefanik's undergraduate papers. If there's any evidence of plagiarism in them, I will demand her degree be rescinded. She should have been expelled from Congress already for being a traitor to the country.

Deflect much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:wow - this thread is so timely for me! my last straw with WaPo was seeing this headline two days ago:

Resignation at Harvard latest but not last salvo in GOP war on colleges
Claudine Gay’s resignation as president seen as emblematic by some of political pressure on higher education

because she is a black woman, she did no wrong and is the victim, and it's all the Republicans' fault.

You don’t think this was an orchestrated attempt by right-wingers with selective outrage about academic integrity? The ringleader of which had a personal axe to grind because she was kicked off Harvard’s senior advisory committee because of her seditious behavior in 2021?

I guess Gays numerous incidents of plagiarism played no role.
Your post is laughable, thanks!

So where was this crew of saviors of the academy when Marc Tessier-Levigne was found to have falsified his research and resigned from Stanford over the summer?

As I said, selective outrage. Gee, I wonder WHY they chose Gay to agitate about?

I love that Ackman's wife was called out for similar plagiarism and he rushed to her defense. When will she resign?

I want to see all of Stefanik's undergraduate papers. If there's any evidence of plagiarism in them, I will demand her degree be rescinded. She should have been expelled from Congress already for being a traitor to the country.

Deflect much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actual headline in today’s Post. NOT the Onion. I’m going to reduce my carbon footprint by canceling my subscription.

“Indoor houseplants come with a cost to the planet. Here’s how to minimize it.”

The article is at least good for a laugh:

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t grow potted plants, according to Susan Pell, the director of the U.S. Botanic Garden in Washington, D.C. But she has a few tips for minimizing the environmental harm of indoor gardening.

“Every little thing we do adds up collectively, so if all of us are doing these things, the collective impact is quite large,”

One little thing I do to help the planet is to park at the end of my driveway to save a few drops of gas. If everyone did this, it would collectively add up and have a large impact.

The amazing part is that a “reporter” actually got paid to write this. Maybe the Post is saving money by plagiarizing a middle schoolers report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post had to cut back on spending, but I think they went about it the wrong way. They offered buyouts and guess who took them -- the skilled reporters who can easily get a job elsewhere. Then you're left with a bunch of second stringers.

The second stringers didn't take buyouts because they know they're not easily employable elsewhere. For example, the front page currenty has an article about where they tested if you need to wash your dishes before putting them in the dishwasher -- leave that to Consumer Reports or Mythbusters. Or 13 Tips to make your job less stressful -- leave that to Buzzfeed.

WP should focus on local news, and politics as those are their niche areas where they can excel.

Such a weird take

Most of the really, really good journalists have been out of the industry for 10-15 yrs. Yes, some great ones remained, but the vast majority of the skilled reporters have been gone for awhile. Not just at the Post, but everywhere.

The ones who’ve been hanging on at the Post are ones who either truly cannot imagine another line of work - a life outside of journalism - or have unsuccessfully tried to make a lateral move to another field and it hasn’t worked.

The claim that scores of highly talented people recently left the Post to easily find other jobs in journalism is nuts. There are like four quality journalism jobs left. These people have nowhere to go.

And the buzzfeed-style stuff in WashPo is not because of “second string reporters.” They could send inexperienced interns to cover the white house and supreme court if they wanted. The paper decided they want writers (of any level/talent/experience) writing about dishwashers. So you are getting articles about dishwashers.

True

But WaPo really lost the plot. There are good journalists out there, even young ones.

But WaPo abandoned Metro, Sports[b], and Style. Their Opinion page is boring and predictable.

There are maybe three national and international correspondents worth paying attention to.
Meanwhile, the NY Times has some great recipes. Good tech stuff. Plus the good reporting.

Much better product. Same with WSJ. And the Financial Times.

WaPo has decided to go very down market.

It's too bad. It was a very good brand not that long ago. But, not interesting these days.

How has the Post "abandoned" its sports coverage? Please, be specific. It was the only desk not targeted for buyouts and is far better than the NYT sports section, which seems to target its stories toward country-club squash players, and the WSJ sports section, which is like one dude.

Sports coverage is dropping off everywhere. It's part of the anti white man agenda WAMU, DC's local NPR station, pretty much stopped covering baseball. Women's soccer gets top of the hour, in depth , attention though. It's hilarious.

It's not the "anti white man agenda" (white men aren't the only people who like sports, among other problems with this theory). It's a crowded market, and no one needs to read the next day's print paper to know who won the game, because they're probably watching the game on their phone if they care. This is just a ridiculous, reactionary take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Actual headline in today’s Post. NOT the Onion. I’m going to reduce my carbon footprint by canceling my subscription.

“Indoor houseplants come with a cost to the planet. Here’s how to minimize it.”

I saw this yesterday I guess and thought it was some sort of mistake. They’re going all in on Gen Z.

[Anonymous]

The Post is so left-leaning I need an Advil after attempting to read an “article.” In todays article “The plagiarism allegations against ex-Harvard president Claudine Gay, explained” you have to read through 24 paragraphs of mental gymnastics trying to defend Gay before you get to the very last paragraph which says everything you needs to know about why she was fired:

“Carol M. Swain, an academic whose work was allegedly misused, has been more critical. She wrote in the Wall Street Journal that improper citations harm scholars, and that “Ms. Gay’s damage to me is aggravated because her early work was in the area where my research is considered seminal.” Swain later added, “Ms. Gay had no problem riding on the coattails of people whose work she used without proper attribution. Many of those whose work she pilfered aren’t as incensed as I am. They are elites who have benefited from a system that protects its own.”

The very last paragraph, if you’ve even made it that far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post had to cut back on spending, but I think they went about it the wrong way. They offered buyouts and guess who took them -- the skilled reporters who can easily get a job elsewhere. Then you're left with a bunch of second stringers.

The second stringers didn't take buyouts because they know they're not easily employable elsewhere. For example, the front page currenty has an article about where they tested if you need to wash your dishes before putting them in the dishwasher -- leave that to Consumer Reports or Mythbusters. Or 13 Tips to make your job less stressful -- leave that to Buzzfeed.

WP should focus on local news, and politics as those are their niche areas where they can excel.

Such a weird take

Most of the really, really good journalists have been out of the industry for 10-15 yrs. Yes, some great ones remained, but the vast majority of the skilled reporters have been gone for awhile. Not just at the Post, but everywhere.

The ones who’ve been hanging on at the Post are ones who either truly cannot imagine another line of work - a life outside of journalism - or have unsuccessfully tried to make a lateral move to another field and it hasn’t worked.

The claim that scores of highly talented people recently left the Post to easily find other jobs in journalism is nuts. There are like four quality journalism jobs left. These people have nowhere to go.

And the buzzfeed-style stuff in WashPo is not because of “second string reporters.” They could send inexperienced interns to cover the white house and supreme court if they wanted. The paper decided they want writers (of any level/talent/experience) writing about dishwashers. So you are getting articles about dishwashers.

True

But WaPo really lost the plot. There are good journalists out there, even young ones.

But WaPo abandoned Metro, Sports[b], and Style. Their Opinion page is boring and predictable.

There are maybe three national and international correspondents worth paying attention to.
Meanwhile, the NY Times has some great recipes. Good tech stuff. Plus the good reporting.

Much better product. Same with WSJ. And the Financial Times.

WaPo has decided to go very down market.

It's too bad. It was a very good brand not that long ago. But, not interesting these days.

How has the Post "abandoned" its sports coverage? Please, be specific. It was the only desk not targeted for buyouts and is far better than the NYT sports section, which seems to target its stories toward country-club squash players, and the WSJ sports section, which is like one dude.

Sports coverage is dropping off everywhere. It's part of the anti white man agenda WAMU, DC's local NPR station, pretty much stopped covering baseball. Women's soccer gets top of the hour, in depth , attention though. It's hilarious.

Yes, because people were going to WAMU for baseball coverage. On what earth are you living? Stick to your safe space at Fox News and you'll be fine, snowflake.

It purports to be a local news station. Local news includes local sports. Deal with it, boy.