Wash Post—new editor from WSJ!?

[Anonymous]

R.I.P. WaPo. Was going to subscribe now that they were going to focus on factual news instead of far leftist rag material, but they abandoned that idea. Down the tubes WaPo continues to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:R.I.P. WaPo. Was going to subscribe now that they were going to focus on factual news instead of far leftist rag material, but they abandoned that idea. Down the tubes WaPo continues to go.

They abandoned the idea of hiring a guy who paid someone to use a phony accent to find out which British celebrities had reserved Maybachs in advance -- not exactly hard-hitting "factual news."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:R.I.P. WaPo. Was going to subscribe now that they were going to focus on factual news instead of far leftist rag material, but they abandoned that idea. Down the tubes WaPo continues to go.

They abandoned the idea of hiring a guy who paid someone to use a phony accent to find out which British celebrities had reserved Maybachs in advance -- not exactly hard-hitting "factual news."

Blah blah blah. Meanwhile WaPo readership and subscription numbers are tanking. Keep doublign down on your stupid news. The public isn't dumb and doesn't want to read partisan and biased hack news from sources like WaPo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:R.I.P. WaPo. Was going to subscribe now that they were going to focus on factual news instead of far leftist rag material, but they abandoned that idea. Down the tubes WaPo continues to go.

They abandoned the idea of hiring a guy who paid someone to use a phony accent to find out which British celebrities had reserved Maybachs in advance -- not exactly hard-hitting "factual news."

Blah blah blah. Meanwhile WaPo readership and subscription numbers are tanking. Keep doublign down on your stupid news. The public isn't dumb and doesn't want to read partisan and biased hack news from sources like WaPo.

Ironically, their steep decline lines up with their pivot to the middle (right at this point).

[Anonymous]

Honestly, the biggest problem isn't the particular politics, it's that the paper is run based on the current whims of its billionaire owner.

Early in the Trump administration Bezos wanted to be the white knight saving American democracy and leading the #Resistance against Trump.

Now, Bezos is annoyed with the left and wants to bring in Murdoch operatives to reset the paper's ideology.

In neither case, though, does he seem interested in the paper being run in an effective manner. It's just about having the top executives agreeing with his takes on current events and politics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, the biggest problem isn't the particular politics, it's that the paper is run based on the current whims of its billionaire owner.

Early in the Trump administration Bezos wanted to be the white knight saving American democracy and leading the #Resistance against Trump.

Now, Bezos is annoyed with the left and wants to bring in Murdoch operatives to reset the paper's ideology.

In neither case, though, does he seem interested in the paper being run in an effective manner. It's just about having the top executives agreeing with his takes on current events and politics.

Their problem is that the DC metro area isn't large enough to support a local paper with national scale. They've leaned into being a national paper and that has cost them local readership- why paper for the WAPO when WTOP and NBC4 have better metro coverage. Meanwhile, their focus is mostly politics, but Politico, the Hill, and Punchbowl do the same thing and are free. So far only the NYtimes has figured out how to be a national paper, and there may not be room for two. The closest competitor isn't even the post, it's WSJ, but they have a business focus that adds value

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, the biggest problem isn't the particular politics, it's that the paper is run based on the current whims of its billionaire owner.

Early in the Trump administration Bezos wanted to be the white knight saving American democracy and leading the #Resistance against Trump.

Now, Bezos is annoyed with the left and wants to bring in Murdoch operatives to reset the paper's ideology.

In neither case, though, does he seem interested in the paper being run in an effective manner. It's just about having the top executives agreeing with his takes on current events and politics.

Their problem is that the DC metro area isn't large enough to support a local paper with national scale. They've leaned into being a national paper and that has cost them local readership- why paper for the WAPO when WTOP and NBC4 have better metro coverage. Meanwhile, their focus is mostly politics, but Politico, the Hill, and Punchbowl do the same thing and are free. So far only the NYtimes has figured out how to be a national paper, and there may not be room for two. The closest competitor isn't even the post, it's WSJ, but they have a business focus that adds value

Left slanted WTOP?! Hardly. No credibility at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:R.I.P. WaPo. Was going to subscribe now that they were going to focus on factual news instead of far leftist rag material, but they abandoned that idea. Down the tubes WaPo continues to go.

They abandoned the idea of hiring a guy who paid someone to use a phony accent to find out which British celebrities had reserved Maybachs in advance -- not exactly hard-hitting "factual news."

Blah blah blah. Meanwhile WaPo readership and subscription numbers are tanking. Keep doublign down on your stupid news. The public isn't dumb and doesn't want to read partisan and biased hack news from sources like WaPo.

In reality, their subscription numbers dropped off after 2020 from a huge and probably artificial bump before then — they got large numbers of new readers during the Trump administration when people were subscribing as, like, a #resistance move, and then those readers drifted away later, when the Biden administration began or when their cheap initial subscriptions were due to renew at a higher price. They went from 1.5 million subscribers in late 2017 to over 3 million in July 2020, and then started losing subscribers again, back to 2 million now (https://www.axios.com/2020/11/24/washington-post-new-york-times-subscriptions).

Readership dropped, too, but the Post was pretty thirsty about chasing first Facebook traffic and then Google traffic, neither of which send anywhere near as many clicks to news sites now as they did before.

You can try to argue that it's because of partisan bias, but I think it's more likely because they made bad or short-sighted strategic decisions. The Times made different decisions and went out to acquire a ton of subscribers, and now the results speak for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:R.I.P. WaPo. Was going to subscribe now that they were going to focus on factual news instead of far leftist rag material, but they abandoned that idea. Down the tubes WaPo continues to go.

They abandoned the idea of hiring a guy who paid someone to use a phony accent to find out which British celebrities had reserved Maybachs in advance -- not exactly hard-hitting "factual news."

Blah blah blah. Meanwhile WaPo readership and subscription numbers are tanking. Keep doublign down on your stupid news. The public isn't dumb and doesn't want to read partisan and biased hack news from sources like WaPo.

In reality, their subscription numbers dropped off after 2020 from a huge and probably artificial bump before then — they got large numbers of new readers during the Trump administration when people were subscribing as, like, a #resistance move, and then those readers drifted away later, when the Biden administration began or when their cheap initial subscriptions were due to renew at a higher price. They went from 1.5 million subscribers in late 2017 to over 3 million in July 2020, and then started losing subscribers again, back to 2 million now (https://www.axios.com/2020/11/24/washington-post-new-york-times-subscriptions).

Readership dropped, too, but the Post was pretty thirsty about chasing first Facebook traffic and then Google traffic, neither of which send anywhere near as many clicks to news sites now as they did before.

You can try to argue that it's because of partisan bias, but I think it's more likely because they made bad or short-sighted strategic decisions. The Times made different decisions and went out to acquire a ton of subscribers, and now the results speak for themselves.

People dumped WaPo after their absolute DISASTER of a story they ran about the Catholic School boy who got confronted by the obnoxious black Islam group and the Native American man. They ran with the story with zero fact checking because it fit their narrative of white male bad. Ooops, too bad that once all of the info and facts were released everyone learned it was fake news and the catholic school kids were being antagonized.


WaPo lost huuuuge amounts of credibility after that. It made it abundantly clear how biased they are and that leftists had run amok at WaPo who could jam through stories with zero fact checking. Trash newspaper got what it deserved.

[Anonymous]

I do miss the Wash Post regularly mailing out those little subscription cards with free postage that myself and others would mail back to them with "F your biased paper" written on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, the biggest problem isn't the particular politics, it's that the paper is run based on the current whims of its billionaire owner.

Early in the Trump administration Bezos wanted to be the white knight saving American democracy and leading the #Resistance against Trump.

Now, Bezos is annoyed with the left and wants to bring in Murdoch operatives to reset the paper's ideology.

In neither case, though, does he seem interested in the paper being run in an effective manner. It's just about having the top executives agreeing with his takes on current events and politics.

Their problem is that the DC metro area isn't large enough to support a local paper with national scale. They've leaned into being a national paper and that has cost them local readership- why paper for the WAPO when WTOP and NBC4 have better metro coverage. Meanwhile, their focus is mostly politics, but Politico, the Hill, and Punchbowl do the same thing and are free. So far only the NYtimes has figured out how to be a national paper, and there may not be room for two. The closest competitor isn't even the post, it's WSJ, but they have a business focus that adds value

I don't think they've really leaned into being a national paper. And they're useless for local - from metro to sports. I genuinely have no idea what the gameplan is for the Post. I mean, choose something. They have the brand where they can still attract talent. Do they want a good local reporter? Do they want entertaining writers for Sports and Style? Do they want the go-to corrrespondents in Moscow and Beijing? Do they want their Opinion section to be must-read?

It's been basically 20 years since the Post even tried. Their trajectory is like all the other former big city papers. It's dying. But it does have the brand, and competent leadership can bring it back. But it really is a moment right now - Baltimore Sun or NYTimes. Choose your ambition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:R.I.P. WaPo. Was going to subscribe now that they were going to focus on factual news instead of far leftist rag material, but they abandoned that idea. Down the tubes WaPo continues to go.

They abandoned the idea of hiring a guy who paid someone to use a phony accent to find out which British celebrities had reserved Maybachs in advance -- not exactly hard-hitting "factual news."

Blah blah blah. Meanwhile WaPo readership and subscription numbers are tanking. Keep doublign down on your stupid news. The public isn't dumb and doesn't want to read partisan and biased hack news from sources like WaPo.

In reality, their subscription numbers dropped off after 2020 from a huge and probably artificial bump before then — they got large numbers of new readers during the Trump administration when people were subscribing as, like, a #resistance move, and then those readers drifted away later, when the Biden administration began or when their cheap initial subscriptions were due to renew at a higher price. They went from 1.5 million subscribers in late 2017 to over 3 million in July 2020, and then started losing subscribers again, back to 2 million now (https://www.axios.com/2020/11/24/washington-post-new-york-times-subscriptions).

Readership dropped, too, but the Post was pretty thirsty about chasing first Facebook traffic and then Google traffic, neither of which send anywhere near as many clicks to news sites now as they did before.

You can try to argue that it's because of partisan bias, but I think it's more likely because they made bad or short-sighted strategic decisions. The Times made different decisions and went out to acquire a ton of subscribers, and now the results speak for themselves.

People dumped WaPo after their absolute DISASTER of a story they ran about the Catholic School boy who got confronted by the obnoxious black Islam group and the Native American man. They ran with the story with zero fact checking because it fit their narrative of white male bad. Ooops, too bad that once all of the info and facts were released everyone learned it was fake news and the catholic school kids were being antagonized.


WaPo lost huuuuge amounts of credibility after that. It made it abundantly clear how biased they are and that leftists had run amok at WaPo who could jam through stories with zero fact checking. Trash newspaper got what it deserved.

This sounds dumb. As if all newspapers are not struggling. No one cared about the catholic kid. I'm sure a few people dropped, but people only thought that was a big story if you cared. Given the increase of non religious people in our country, most people ignored the story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:R.I.P. WaPo. Was going to subscribe now that they were going to focus on factual news instead of far leftist rag material, but they abandoned that idea. Down the tubes WaPo continues to go.

They abandoned the idea of hiring a guy who paid someone to use a phony accent to find out which British celebrities had reserved Maybachs in advance -- not exactly hard-hitting "factual news."

Blah blah blah. Meanwhile WaPo readership and subscription numbers are tanking. Keep doublign down on your stupid news. The public isn't dumb and doesn't want to read partisan and biased hack news from sources like WaPo.

In reality, their subscription numbers dropped off after 2020 from a huge and probably artificial bump before then — they got large numbers of new readers during the Trump administration when people were subscribing as, like, a #resistance move, and then those readers drifted away later, when the Biden administration began or when their cheap initial subscriptions were due to renew at a higher price. They went from 1.5 million subscribers in late 2017 to over 3 million in July 2020, and then started losing subscribers again, back to 2 million now (https://www.axios.com/2020/11/24/washington-post-new-york-times-subscriptions).

Readership dropped, too, but the Post was pretty thirsty about chasing first Facebook traffic and then Google traffic, neither of which send anywhere near as many clicks to news sites now as they did before.

You can try to argue that it's because of partisan bias, but I think it's more likely because they made bad or short-sighted strategic decisions. The Times made different decisions and went out to acquire a ton of subscribers, and now the results speak for themselves.

People dumped WaPo after their absolute DISASTER of a story they ran about the Catholic School boy who got confronted by the obnoxious black Islam group and the Native American man. They ran with the story with zero fact checking because it fit their narrative of white male bad. Ooops, too bad that once all of the info and facts were released everyone learned it was fake news and the catholic school kids were being antagonized.


WaPo lost huuuuge amounts of credibility after that. It made it abundantly clear how biased they are and that leftists had run amok at WaPo who could jam through stories with zero fact checking. Trash newspaper got what it deserved.

This sounds dumb. As if all newspapers are not struggling. No one cared about the catholic kid. I'm sure a few people dropped, but people only thought that was a big story if you cared. Given the increase of non religious people in our country, most people ignored the story.

Your memory sucks. Probably because your narrative got blown up. Liberal media outlets called it the biggest story in the country at the time of the incident. You just have selective memory because you don’t want to admit that bias that exists in the liberal media and how badly they (like WaPo) got it. It was extremely damaging to WaPo’s credibility. WaPo ran fake news that literally caused a minor to be exposed to death threats. All because outlets like WaPo loved certain photos taken out of context that fit their desired story of white males bad. WaPo couldn’t be trusted as a reliable source for unbiased reporting after that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:R.I.P. WaPo. Was going to subscribe now that they were going to focus on factual news instead of far leftist rag material, but they abandoned that idea. Down the tubes WaPo continues to go.

They abandoned the idea of hiring a guy who paid someone to use a phony accent to find out which British celebrities had reserved Maybachs in advance -- not exactly hard-hitting "factual news."

Blah blah blah. Meanwhile WaPo readership and subscription numbers are tanking. Keep doublign down on your stupid news. The public isn't dumb and doesn't want to read partisan and biased hack news from sources like WaPo.

In reality, their subscription numbers dropped off after 2020 from a huge and probably artificial bump before then — they got large numbers of new readers during the Trump administration when people were subscribing as, like, a #resistance move, and then those readers drifted away later, when the Biden administration began or when their cheap initial subscriptions were due to renew at a higher price. They went from 1.5 million subscribers in late 2017 to over 3 million in July 2020, and then started losing subscribers again, back to 2 million now (https://www.axios.com/2020/11/24/washington-post-new-york-times-subscriptions).

Readership dropped, too, but the Post was pretty thirsty about chasing first Facebook traffic and then Google traffic, neither of which send anywhere near as many clicks to news sites now as they did before.

You can try to argue that it's because of partisan bias, but I think it's more likely because they made bad or short-sighted strategic decisions. The Times made different decisions and went out to acquire a ton of subscribers, and now the results speak for themselves.

People dumped WaPo after their absolute DISASTER of a story they ran about the Catholic School boy who got confronted by the obnoxious black Islam group and the Native American man. They ran with the story with zero fact checking because it fit their narrative of white male bad. Ooops, too bad that once all of the info and facts were released everyone learned it was fake news and the catholic school kids were being antagonized.


WaPo lost huuuuge amounts of credibility after that. It made it abundantly clear how biased they are and that leftists had run amok at WaPo who could jam through stories with zero fact checking. Trash newspaper got what it deserved.

That story was bad, but I really think you're probably overestimating how many people who were going to be angry enough about it to cancel their subscription were already subscribing to the Post. It's always had a pretty liberal readership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:R.I.P. WaPo. Was going to subscribe now that they were going to focus on factual news instead of far leftist rag material, but they abandoned that idea. Down the tubes WaPo continues to go.

They abandoned the idea of hiring a guy who paid someone to use a phony accent to find out which British celebrities had reserved Maybachs in advance -- not exactly hard-hitting "factual news."

Blah blah blah. Meanwhile WaPo readership and subscription numbers are tanking. Keep doublign down on your stupid news. The public isn't dumb and doesn't want to read partisan and biased hack news from sources like WaPo.

In reality, their subscription numbers dropped off after 2020 from a huge and probably artificial bump before then — they got large numbers of new readers during the Trump administration when people were subscribing as, like, a #resistance move, and then those readers drifted away later, when the Biden administration began or when their cheap initial subscriptions were due to renew at a higher price. They went from 1.5 million subscribers in late 2017 to over 3 million in July 2020, and then started losing subscribers again, back to 2 million now (https://www.axios.com/2020/11/24/washington-post-new-york-times-subscriptions).

Readership dropped, too, but the Post was pretty thirsty about chasing first Facebook traffic and then Google traffic, neither of which send anywhere near as many clicks to news sites now as they did before.

You can try to argue that it's because of partisan bias, but I think it's more likely because they made bad or short-sighted strategic decisions. The Times made different decisions and went out to acquire a ton of subscribers, and now the results speak for themselves.

People dumped WaPo after their absolute DISASTER of a story they ran about the Catholic School boy who got confronted by the obnoxious black Islam group and the Native American man. They ran with the story with zero fact checking because it fit their narrative of white male bad. Ooops, too bad that once all of the info and facts were released everyone learned it was fake news and the catholic school kids were being antagonized.


WaPo lost huuuuge amounts of credibility after that. It made it abundantly clear how biased they are and that leftists had run amok at WaPo who could jam through stories with zero fact checking. Trash newspaper got what it deserved.

This sounds dumb. As if all newspapers are not struggling. No one cared about the catholic kid. I'm sure a few people dropped, but people only thought that was a big story if you cared. Given the increase of non religious people in our country, most people ignored the story.

Your memory sucks. Probably because your narrative got blown up. Liberal media outlets called it the biggest story in the country at the time of the incident. You just have selective memory because you don’t want to admit that bias that exists in the liberal media and how badly they (like WaPo) got it. It was extremely damaging to WaPo’s credibility. WaPo ran fake news that literally caused a minor to be exposed to death threats. All because outlets like WaPo loved certain photos taken out of context that fit their desired story of white males bad. WaPo couldn’t be trusted as a reliable source for unbiased reporting after that.

Which media outlets called a random confrontation between two random people the biggest story in the country?