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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1

I subscribe to eight newspapers.

People who brag about not reading newspapers sound to me like people bragging about how much junk food they eat. Congratulations?

Sure there is a free press in the US. Supporting it is not mandatory. The Soviets had to support Pravda. But I don't have to support WaPo or the NYT. If you choose to, that's all good with me. If you can subscribe to 8 papers, you must have alot of disposable income.

DP, but the Post is $29 a year. I also get the Los Angeles Times online for $12 a year and the Wall Street Journal online for $52 for a year. That's a grand total of $93 for three papers — not exactly the kind of annual expense that requires you to be rolling in cash. I do also get the Sunday NYT delivered to my house, which is several hundred dollars a year, so that IS more expensive, but none of this is totally cost-prohibitive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1

I subscribe to eight newspapers.

People who brag about not reading newspapers sound to me like people bragging about how much junk food they eat. Congratulations?

Sure there is a free press in the US. Supporting it is not mandatory. The Soviets had to support Pravda. But I don't have to support WaPo or the NYT. If you choose to, that's all good with me. If you can subscribe to 8 papers, you must have alot of disposable income.

DP, but the Post is $29 a year. I also get the Los Angeles Times online for $12 a year and the Wall Street Journal online for $52 for a year. That's a grand total of $93 for three papers — not exactly the kind of annual expense that requires you to be rolling in cash. I do also get the Sunday NYT delivered to my house, which is several hundred dollars a year, so that IS more expensive, but none of this is totally cost-prohibitive.

Glad you can afford it. Not pocket watching, but I have other things I need to spend on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1

I subscribe to eight newspapers.

People who brag about not reading newspapers sound to me like people bragging about how much junk food they eat. Congratulations?

Sure there is a free press in the US. Supporting it is not mandatory. The Soviets had to support Pravda. But I don't have to support WaPo or the NYT. If you choose to, that's all good with me. If you can subscribe to 8 papers, you must have alot of disposable income.

DP, but the Post is $29 a year. I also get the Los Angeles Times online for $12 a year and the Wall Street Journal online for $52 for a year. That's a grand total of $93 for three papers — not exactly the kind of annual expense that requires you to be rolling in cash. I do also get the Sunday NYT delivered to my house, which is several hundred dollars a year, so that IS more expensive, but none of this is totally cost-prohibitive.

Except that isn't true. And even if you start with a low price they'll jack it up considerably after the introductory period ends.

[Anonymous]

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

Murdoch and right-wing podcasts? Sure, if you want to be remain misinformed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Murdoch and right-wing podcasts? Sure, if you want to be remain misinformed.

Bezos and communist propaganda. Sure, if you want to remain misinformed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1

I subscribe to eight newspapers.

People who brag about not reading newspapers sound to me like people bragging about how much junk food they eat. Congratulations?

Sure there is a free press in the US. Supporting it is not mandatory. The Soviets had to support Pravda. But I don't have to support WaPo or the NYT. If you choose to, that's all good with me. If you can subscribe to 8 papers, you must have alot of disposable income.

DP, but the Post is $29 a year. I also get the Los Angeles Times online for $12 a year and the Wall Street Journal online for $52 for a year. That's a grand total of $93 for three papers — not exactly the kind of annual expense that requires you to be rolling in cash. I do also get the Sunday NYT delivered to my house, which is several hundred dollars a year, so that IS more expensive, but none of this is totally cost-prohibitive.

Except that isn't true. And even if you start with a low price they'll jack it up considerably after the introductory period ends.

And then you tell them you're canceling, and they'll offer you the same low price or lower. It isn't rocket science (for most).

[Anonymous]

What is the Posts obsession with race? You cannot seem to go by a day without some piece on race in America. Paper is garbage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Murdoch and right-wing podcasts? Sure, if you want to be remain misinformed.

Yes, unlike the sane, rational and intelligent pieces by Taylor Lorenz that inform your worldview.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are a freeloader. If you don’t pay, then don’t read (and definitely don’t complain). Newspapers are not charities.

No, I chose not to support businesses that hate me. There are alot of ways to consume news these days. Sorry newspapers have become irrelevant.

I think the problem here is that you're an idiot. But, please, feel free to get all your news from your neighbor's slow cousin's blog. Sounds like that's more your speed anyway.

Ad Hominem, thats ok. You can't win the argument. But keep trying. You may be that participation badge at some point.

Your argument was "I don't want to buy a newspaper." Ok, well, thanks for sharing. Not really an argument or even very interesting. Educated people though read newspapers and they support newspapers because democracies cannot function without them.

No, my argument was I don't buy from news sources that hate me. Last time I checked, WSJ is a newspaper. And please spare me the lecture on democracies. the US is not one. It is a Constitutional Republic. Do you or someone in your family work for WaPo? You sure seem offended.

I agree that the WSJ is a legit newspaper and better then the Post in many ways, but a constitutional republic is absolutely a type of democracy. I'm not sure why you think we're not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

+1

I subscribe to eight newspapers.

People who brag about not reading newspapers sound to me like people bragging about how much junk food they eat. Congratulations?

Sure there is a free press in the US. Supporting it is not mandatory. The Soviets had to support Pravda. But I don't have to support WaPo or the NYT. If you choose to, that's all good with me. If you can subscribe to 8 papers, you must have alot of disposable income.

DP, but the Post is $29 a year. I also get the Los Angeles Times online for $12 a year and the Wall Street Journal online for $52 for a year. That's a grand total of $93 for three papers — not exactly the kind of annual expense that requires you to be rolling in cash. I do also get the Sunday NYT delivered to my house, which is several hundred dollars a year, so that IS more expensive, but none of this is totally cost-prohibitive.

Except that isn't true. And even if you start with a low price they'll jack it up considerably after the introductory period ends.

Ah, I guess that was a sale that ended. Now it's gone all the way up to $40 a year. https://subscribe.washingtonpost.com

If you want the print edition, obviously, that'll cost more, but who needs that?

[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?

Thank you. I’m a journalist, not for the Post, but completely agree with its tagline: Democracy dies in darkness. I think the Post does a decent job with national and international news, but am saddened by the continued decline in local news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Thank you. I’m a journalist, not for the Post, but completely agree with its tagline: Democracy dies in darkness. I think the Post does a decent job with national and international news, but am saddened by the continued decline in local news.

Post’s international coverage is third rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Thank you. I’m a journalist, not for the Post, but completely agree with its tagline: Democracy dies in darkness. I think the Post does a decent job with national and international news, but am saddened by the continued decline in local news.

Post’s international coverage is third rate.

Compared to what? Also buy a friggin subscription. If more people paid, they could afford to cover more things. The limiting factor for all newspapers is the number of subscribers. None of it works if readers don’t pay. Selling ads amounts to shit.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But where will Taylor Lorenz suffer her oh so public covid panic attacks???

It’s incredible that they let 240 people go and she’s still there. She’s got to have dirt on the publisher.