With WaPo’s demise, what other sources of DC metro news coverage?

[Anonymous]

WaPo never covered Montgomery County or Fairfax County well, even back when many people subscribed. Good riddance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WaPo never covered Montgomery County or Fairfax County well, even back when many people subscribed. Good riddance.

That's obviously wrong. The Post used to have a huge number of reporters throughout the suburbs. They used to have a dozen journalists covering Fairfax County alone (and they were really good reporters).

It would have been great if all the snowflakes having a hissy fit over something stupid that happened at the editorial page (that they never even read) could have canceled their Amazon subscriptions instead of destroying a newspaper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Washington City Paper, Washington Informer, Capitol Hill Corner, Hey DC, the 51st, WAMU, WPFW, WTOP, all the ANC listserves, etc. I've been having to cobble things together for a while since the Post's Metro coverage started it's slide years ago.

Didn't cancel before but there will not be anything I care to read. They already have a health section, which is ok. Their national and food sections are not as good as NYT. Losing the book section. They will have to create a business section out of whole cloth since they basically already did away with it. Not much left for me.

This is a really helpful roundup - thanks. Definitely agree about cobbling together lots of different sources.

I’m seeing a lot of people bring up the 51st - I think the 51st absolutely has its merits but it’s also very small and quite overtly biased (part of that is editorial judgment but it’s also just a natural side effect of a smaller, self-selecting publication).

Of course, *all* media is biased, but one of the key advantages of a huge and established paper (like WaPo, formerly) is that it can support a diverse and vetted slate of opinion writers and larger newsrooms where strong teams can check each other and work towards clear and fair reporting that gets as close to the “truth” as possible. There just won’t be a replacement for what WaPo once was…sigh. I am sad.

I absolutely would not rely on the 51st fo local news.


One day before the Post detonated its Metro section, it published a lengthy, well-reported expose of the fraud perpetuated by DC’s taxpayer-funded violence interruption industry. Do you think the 51st would ever publish such a story? Their reporters, particularly lazy-ass Martin, only report on things that are spoon-fed by their preferred Council members. They never do investigative work like that, mainly because they are afraid that my what they will uncover will shatter their very narrow world views.

Even with the Post’s demise, there are better options than the 51st (and anyone who says Popville should immediately leave the city),

This is an excellent point. At the center of the violence-interruptor fraud was council member

- Trayon White (Ward 8).

Don’t make the mistake of simply dismissing Trayon White, just because the rest of the Council unanimously voted to kick him off the council. Remember:

Ward 8 was Marion Barry’s territory. And like Barry, the residents of Ward 8 gladly voted Trayon White right back onto the city council.

All criminal frauds and grifters. Untrustworthy. Both sides of the coin really do look similar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo never covered Montgomery County or Fairfax County well, even back when many people subscribed. Good riddance.

That's obviously wrong. The Post used to have a huge number of reporters throughout the suburbs. They used to have a dozen journalists covering Fairfax County alone (and they were really good reporters).

If they did, those reports rarely got printed in the newspaper delivered to my Fairfax address. Lots of column-inches about DC government though.

And I don't read or care about the editorial page in any case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo never covered Montgomery County or Fairfax County well, even back when many people subscribed. Good riddance.

That's obviously wrong. The Post used to have a huge number of reporters throughout the suburbs. They used to have a dozen journalists covering Fairfax County alone (and they were really good reporters).

If they did, those reports rarely got printed in the newspaper delivered to my Fairfax address. Lots of column-inches about DC government though.

And I don't read or care about the editorial page in any case.

Perhaps you weren't paying attention. Some of the Post reporters who covered Fairfax and other suburbs went on to become pretty famous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo never covered Montgomery County or Fairfax County well, even back when many people subscribed. Good riddance.

That's obviously wrong. The Post used to have a huge number of reporters throughout the suburbs. They used to have a dozen journalists covering Fairfax County alone (and they were really good reporters).

If they did, those reports rarely got printed in the newspaper delivered to my Fairfax address. Lots of column-inches about DC government though.

And I don't read or care about the editorial page in any case.

Perhaps you weren't paying attention. Some of the Post reporters who covered Fairfax and other suburbs went on to become pretty famous.

Maybe you are thinking of the 1970s or 80s?

I was actively looking for local news for NOVA. Some news, but really very slim coverage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo never covered Montgomery County or Fairfax County well, even back when many people subscribed. Good riddance.

That's obviously wrong. The Post used to have a huge number of reporters throughout the suburbs. They used to have a dozen journalists covering Fairfax County alone (and they were really good reporters).

If they did, those reports rarely got printed in the newspaper delivered to my Fairfax address. Lots of column-inches about DC government though.

And I don't read or care about the editorial page in any case.

Perhaps you weren't paying attention. Some of the Post reporters who covered Fairfax and other suburbs went on to become pretty famous.

Maybe you are thinking of the 1970s or 80s?

I was actively looking for local news for NOVA. Some news, but really very slim coverage.

We're pretty much limited to the 11 o'clock news for good local news and sports coverage, and weather. Problem is most locals don't watch it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

We're pretty much limited to the 11 o'clock news for good local news and sports coverage, and weather. Problem is most locals don't watch it.

News flash: It's 2026. TV news channels have websites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo never covered Montgomery County or Fairfax County well, even back when many people subscribed. Good riddance.

That's obviously wrong. The Post used to have a huge number of reporters throughout the suburbs. They used to have a dozen journalists covering Fairfax County alone (and they were really good reporters).

If they did, those reports rarely got printed in the newspaper delivered to my Fairfax address. Lots of column-inches about DC government though.

And I don't read or care about the editorial page in any case.

Perhaps you weren't paying attention. Some of the Post reporters who covered Fairfax and other suburbs went on to become pretty famous.

Maybe you are thinking of the 1970s or 80s?

I was actively looking for local news for NOVA. Some news, but really very slim coverage.

We're pretty much limited to the 11 o'clock news for good local news and sports coverage, and weather. Problem is most locals don't watch it.

Comparing the Washington Post to local news outlets is like comparing the Washington Nationals to a Double-A baseball team.

[Anonymous]

The New York Times has a long story today on Bezos & the Post. The takeaways:

1. He says the paper has to be profitable
2. The editorial page is explicitly libertarian, and he doesn't care if you don't like it
3. He doesn't get involved in the news coverage at all
4. He isn't going to sell the paper. He's rejected many offers to buy it from him.

I dunno. Doesn't really seem like a good reason to cancel your subscription.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/14/business/media/washington-post-jeff-bezos-layoffs.html

[Anonymous]

I was hoping this thread was bumped because all the laid-off journalists had started an indy type endeavor. I would pay cash money for some real investigative reporting and honest facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was hoping this thread was bumped because all the laid-off journalists had started an indy type endeavor. I would pay cash money for some real investigative reporting and honest facts.

Most of those people will probably go into PR. People have bills to pay. It's a real loss to the profession and for the public. Good job former subscribers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The New York Times has a long story today on Bezos & the Post. The takeaways:

1. He says the paper has to be profitable

This is just a baldfaced lie and a sign of how arrogant he is to think that anyone would believe it. Nothing that he’s done, nothing, has been designed to increase the paper’s profitability. Because, of course, he doesn’t need it to be profitable. Like Musk with Twitter, he simply needs to control a major media outlet to control how things are covered, if at all. He profits from controlling the narrative, not selling ad space.

2. The editorial page is explicitly libertarian, and he doesn't care if you don't like it

Yeah, this is the well-worn dodge that RWNJs go to when they want to avoid being labeled RWNJs.

3. He doesn't get involved in the news coverage at all

Adorable.

4. He isn't going to sell the paper. He's rejected many offers to buy it from him.

Of course he’s not going to sell. See 1 above.

I dunno. Doesn't really seem like a good reason to cancel your subscription.

I dunno. For a capitalist with no ulterior motives, aren’t subscription cancellations precisely the sort of market feedback he’d want to inform his 100% good faith pursuit of profitability with which he is so genuinely concerned? And good news! The market has been speaking to him for years now. I look forward to his nimble pivot from his failed approach to date.

Unless, you know, he’s lying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The New York Times has a long story today on Bezos & the Post. The takeaways:

1. He says the paper has to be profitable

This is just a baldfaced lie and a sign of how arrogant he is to think that anyone would believe it. Nothing that he’s done, nothing, has been designed to increase the paper’s profitability. Because, of course, he doesn’t need it to be profitable. Like Musk with Twitter, he simply needs to control a major media outlet to control how things are covered, if at all. He profits from controlling the narrative, not selling ad space.

2. The editorial page is explicitly libertarian, and he doesn't care if you don't like it

Yeah, this is the well-worn dodge that RWNJs go to when they want to avoid being labeled RWNJs.

3. He doesn't get involved in the news coverage at all

Adorable.

4. He isn't going to sell the paper. He's rejected many offers to buy it from him.

Of course he’s not going to sell. See 1 above.

I dunno. Doesn't really seem like a good reason to cancel your subscription.

I dunno. For a capitalist with no ulterior motives, aren’t subscription cancellations precisely the sort of market feedback he’d want to inform his 100% good faith pursuit of profitability with which he is so genuinely concerned? And good news! The market has been speaking to him for years now. I look forward to his nimble pivot from his failed approach to date.

Unless, you know, he’s lying.

Eh, I'd say maybe you should keep the uninformed, weird ravings to yourself and just read the story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The New York Times has a long story today on Bezos & the Post. The takeaways:

1. He says the paper has to be profitable
2. The editorial page is explicitly libertarian, and he doesn't care if you don't like it
3. He doesn't get involved in the news coverage at all
4. He isn't going to sell the paper. He's rejected many offers to buy it from him.

I dunno. Doesn't really seem like a good reason to cancel your subscription.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/14/business/media/washington-post-jeff-bezos-layoffs.html

LOL. It's a good reason to cancel both, which so many have already done. The NYT is just as bad.