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

[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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree but honestly Paula Dvorvak was pretty awful.

You are sock puppeting now?

We get it. You don’t like her. You say this every time her name comes up in these forums and it’s quite tiresome.

Multiple posters. Glad she’ll have one less platform.

Nice try. Lovely parting gifts for you off stage, etc. We know you're one person. You literally say the same thing every time her name comes up in these forums. I've seen it for years. It's like you have an obsession. It's weird.

Dude. This is not a single poster. The lady is an idiot and a horrific “ reporter.” Clearly you can accept that more than one person thinks this and posts in DCUM, right?

Dude, she isn’t a reporter at all. She is a columnist. If you don’t understand the difference, you don’t get to have an opinion, much less express it.

DP. The salient point was that Dvorak has never been much of a journalist. All she did in her COLUMNS was regurgitate already REPORTED news with a predictable spin. Comfort food for sheeple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

WAMU rarely, if ever, has covered sports. You're just wrong. Take the loss here.

[Anonymous]

WaPo hasn't been relevant since maybe 2003. If I wanted real national news I would go to the Wall Street Journal. If I want actual news on DC, I would go to the City Paper or the NW Current (yes, I know its gone). I held onto reading WaPo for the sports page but that too became irrelevant and disappointing as I knew several of the staff writers in that department.

[Anonymous]

I don’t notice much more of a leftist or CRT slant in WaPo—the main news articles seem about the same to me. Occasionally a really good one, most are basic coverage and better than CNN.
Many of the columnists are not very good (not really a fan of any of them except maybe the entertainment/fashion people soemtkmes have good ones).
The science writing is beyond abysmal. Like a middle school kid could write better health/science/environmental stuff. It’s always so captain obvious. The NYT seems to be the only paper with decent science coverage. As a kid I grew up reading mass market science magazines like Nat Geo and Discover — I love science writing for a general audience. It’s so important to policy questions and also just general life decisions—I really really wish that newspapers did a better job covering science.

FWIW, I also read Bloomberg legal and business news and I have seen so many errors lately in their coverage—stuff that is just wrong. I think with everything being so cheap and plentiful, we’ve sacrificed quality for quantity in information/news. It’s everywhere 24 hours but most of it is not at all educational or insightful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WaPo hasn't been relevant since maybe 2003. If I wanted real national news I would go to the Wall Street Journal. If I want actual news on DC, I would go to the City Paper or the NW Current (yes, I know its gone). I held onto reading WaPo for the sports page but that too became irrelevant and disappointing as I knew several of the staff writers in that department.

The CityPaper is a laughable shell of itself now, and no one pays a lick of attention to it. It's on its wheezing last legs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

WAMU rarely, if ever, has covered sports. You're just wrong. Take the loss here.

Incorrect. Their newscasts regularly cover DC/Baltimore teams (including baseball and football, in spite of what PP claims). I'm sorry they can't handle the fact that they also include the Mystics and Spirit. Clearly butthurt over the whole two minutes those updates take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read Wtop and dcist for local news. I agree it’s not great but it’s better than in most areas. My friend is involved in a piece of litigation that will significant afffect my hometown and when I asked my family, they hadn’t even heard about it. I finally found a mention in the local paper but it was pretty delayed.

Wtop is horrible now. There is no information in any of their articles. It's the equivalent of reading a twitter post.

I believe in the Post's motto and it one more thing that makes me worried we are going to descend into a fascist authoritarian abyss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo hasn't been relevant since maybe 2003. If I wanted real national news I would go to the Wall Street Journal. If I want actual news on DC, I would go to the City Paper or the NW Current (yes, I know its gone). I held onto reading WaPo for the sports page but that too became irrelevant and disappointing as I knew several of the staff writers in that department.

The CityPaper is a laughable shell of itself now, and no one pays a lick of attention to it. It's on its wheezing last legs.

That's too bad. Used to love being able to see the listings for shows at the old 9:30, DC Space and Bayou in there

[Anonymous]

I dont know about WTOP web reporting but the radio is awful The station that used the tag line "Facts matter" and their reporters constantly put opinion into their reporting. Stick to news and leave the opinion for NPR

[Anonymous]

I now get news from podcasts & WSJ. Commentary magazine podcast is fantastic