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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Let that rag die.

This. It used to be a respected paper. Now it’s just regurgitated woke punch lines.

Sad but true... and the last place I'd go for any local news.

You all need to head back over to your favorite the Wash Times. Dare you to share your handle in the comments because I can guess what they're like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Since all three of the venues whose concert listings you used to love being able to see in City Paper have closed or moved, you can probably get a sense of the challenges to the business model that have squeezed the publication over the last 20 years.

[Anonymous]

It bothers me to see people here trying to outdo one another by how little they pay to get a subscription. You are the problem. I go out of my way to subscribe to other newspapers that I rarely look at just to support them.

If you agree having a free press is important, why aren't you paying for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Since all three of the venues whose concert listings you used to love being able to see in City Paper have closed or moved, you can probably get a sense of the challenges to the business model that have squeezed the publication over the last 20 years.

I just look at it as a result of times changing. That was the 80's and 90's. No internet and no social media

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Post became unreadable around Covid. It was all scolding, Trump=bad, and glib sermonizing. I got it for local news and sports, but they clearly pivoted to the national organ for the “resistance” or whatever. Taylor Lorenz was just the cherry on top.

The truth hurts. Trump was beyond bad. He's a criminal who has never had a relationship with the truth. Do you dispute that? The majority of the population was part of the "resistance" or whatever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t love the post but the demise of newspapers and reporters overall is a serious issue for accountability and transparency. I think this is the biggest failure of googles supposed ‘don’t be evil’ mantra in their undermining of news content in our society by essentially devaluing it. I think we should follow Canada’s lead and require them to pay for news that they cite and not spread dangerous false stories.

Especially in local news. Who is covering local and state issues in any depth now? Or, really, at all?

+100

[Anonymous]

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.

I'm a DP- Jeff can confirm, but personally I find her so abhorrent that I wouldn't mind it if her car fell off a bridge. She is everything that is wrong with the left.

That is a horrible thing to say and you have serious issues.

and they always obsess about women. Always.

[Anonymous]

People who don't subscribe to newspapers who complain about the news should shut the fkcu up. You're part of the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People who don't subscribe to newspapers who complain about the news should shut the fkcu up. You're part of the problem.

No, we should not. Sorry you don't like the stance or the opinion. I would tell you that it is you that should SFTU but its easier to let you keep talking so people see what you say and make up their own mind, like a adult would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I agree. The Post has kept good sports coverage. They even kept on Steven Goff, who I like, but covers soccer pretty much exclusively. Hardly the most popular sport here.

[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.

DP. You couldn't be more wrong. They cover the Mystics incessantly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post became unreadable around Covid. It was all scolding, Trump=bad, and glib sermonizing. I got it for local news and sports, but they clearly pivoted to the national organ for the “resistance” or whatever. Taylor Lorenz was just the cherry on top.

The truth hurts. Trump was beyond bad. He's a criminal who has never had a relationship with the truth. Do you dispute that? The majority of the population was part of the "resistance" or whatever.

I literally can not wait to see the reaction from people like you when he takes back the White House and pardons all the J6 attendees. I'm giddy with anticipation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is what really frustrates me. They take forever to actually get to the facts. Did plagiarism occur? How severe was it based on an expert's opinion?

It's not only on articles that could have a possible "agenda". Even more basic articles like Metro section features. Here's one on the woman building a tunnel under her home:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/01/04/tunnel-girl-virginia-bunker-house/

Seems unsafe to me, but I'm no expert. Do the local building codes allow this to be done with a permit? They never asked someone at the permitting office if it does or not. Instead, they go on and on about the back-story of the tunnel builder and her tiktok fame and so on. How about some facts too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It bothers me to see people here trying to outdo one another by how little they pay to get a subscription. You are the problem. I go out of my way to subscribe to other newspapers that I rarely look at just to support them.

If you agree having a free press is important, why aren't you paying for it?

People aren't paying for it because it has no value. Most newspapers are just vectors for a certain point of view, including the WaPo. The stories they choose to cover and promote. Where they send their reporters. What questions they ask. How they frame a story, even simple news. None of it is unbiased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is what really frustrates me. They take forever to actually get to the facts. Did plagiarism occur? How severe was it based on an expert's opinion?

It's not only on articles that could have a possible "agenda". Even more basic articles like Metro section features. Here's one on the woman building a tunnel under her home:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/01/04/tunnel-girl-virginia-bunker-house/

Seems unsafe to me, but I'm no expert. Do the local building codes allow this to be done with a permit? They never asked someone at the permitting office if it does or not. Instead, they go on and on about the back-story of the tunnel builder and her tiktok fame and so on. How about some facts too?

Feelings matter.