Wash Post—new editor from WSJ!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Your memory sucks. Let me help you out:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/23/18192831/covington-catholic-maga-hat-native-american-nathan-phillips

Even the garbage NYT was using similar hyperbolic language:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/20/us/nathan-phillips-covington.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Your memory sucks. Let me help you out:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/23/18192831/covington-catholic-maga-hat-native-american-nathan-phillips

Even the garbage NYT was using similar hyperbolic language:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/20/us/nathan-phillips-covington.html

Ha, OK, that IS pretty pathetic. Had not seen that Vox story and couldn't imagine anyone describing that story that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Your memory sucks. Let me help you out:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/23/18192831/covington-catholic-maga-hat-native-american-nathan-phillips

Even the garbage NYT was using similar hyperbolic language:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/20/us/nathan-phillips-covington.html

Ha, OK, that IS pretty pathetic. Had not seen that Vox story and couldn't imagine anyone describing that story that way.

Seriously? Is this a sockpuppet to the troll? The whole point of the Vox article is that the controversy itself is an encapsulation of American politics. Which, given initial liberal push and then the massive amount of attention conservative media had dedicated to countering the story, is hardly a bold claim. The troll and you seem to be suggesting that these claims about importance were made prior to the backlash, while citing articles that are specifically taking into context the backlash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Your memory sucks. Let me help you out:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/23/18192831/covington-catholic-maga-hat-native-american-nathan-phillips

Even the garbage NYT was using similar hyperbolic language:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/20/us/nathan-phillips-covington.html

Ha, OK, that IS pretty pathetic. Had not seen that Vox story and couldn't imagine anyone describing that story that way.

Seriously? Is this a sockpuppet to the troll? The whole point of the Vox article is that the controversy itself is an encapsulation of American politics. Which, given initial liberal push and then the massive amount of attention conservative media had dedicated to countering the story, is hardly a bold claim. The troll and you seem to be suggesting that these claims about importance were made prior to the backlash, while citing articles that are specifically taking into context the backlash.

The lede is still saying the whole controversy was the biggest story in the country, which is a ridiculous claim even if it felt that way at the time. I don't think the Post's readership or subscription problems have anything to do with this story or the conservative outrage over it, but that IS a silly thing to say about a stupid incident where (fortunately) no one was hurt that only happened to make news because someone took a video of it.

[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.

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

Their decline is made entirely of butthurt lefties leaving as the paper tries to save itself by remembering that journalism has no bias.

Libs have long since been the only people who assigned the WP any credibility, and they were it’s only readership, moderates and conservatives having long ago given up on the Post.

It’s current readership is composed entirely of leftists who aren’t looking for information but rather affirmation of their own bias. They want an echo chamber not a newspaper. Leftists who despise objectivity are the ones leaving now.

[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.

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

Their decline is made entirely of butthurt lefties leaving as the paper tries to save itself by remembering that journalism has no bias.

Libs have long since been the only people who assigned the WP any credibility, and they were it’s only readership, moderates and conservatives having long ago given up on the Post.

Its current readership is composed entirely of leftists who aren’t looking for information but rather affirmation of their own bias. They want an echo chamber not a newspaper. Leftists who despise objectivity are the ones leaving now.

Phase 1 was the paper losing subscribers as it turned itself into the newspaper version of MSNBC and cultivating a smaller subscriber base of committed lefties.

Phase 2 is losing these leftie subscribers as they try to right the ship.

Phase 3 is the hope that they can repair their reputation and win back the old subscriber base that they lost. Most likely it’s too late.

[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.

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

Their decline is made entirely of butthurt lefties leaving as the paper tries to save itself by remembering that journalism has no bias.

Libs have long since been the only people who assigned the WP any credibility, and they were it’s only readership, moderates and conservatives having long ago given up on the Post.

Its current readership is composed entirely of leftists who aren’t looking for information but rather affirmation of their own bias. They want an echo chamber not a newspaper. Leftists who despise objectivity are the ones leaving now.

Phase 1 was the paper losing subscribers as it turned itself into the newspaper version of MSNBC and cultivating a smaller subscriber base of committed lefties.

Phase 2 is losing these leftie subscribers as they try to right the ship.

Phase 3 is the hope that they can repair their reputation and win back the old subscriber base that they lost. Most likely it’s too late.

Phase 4, bankruptcy and sale of assets because the previous subscribers aren’t going to be fooled into coming back. They realized they could find unbiased news content from other sources and don’t need WaPo anymore.

Bye bye WaPo

[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.

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

Their decline is made entirely of butthurt lefties leaving as the paper tries to save itself by remembering that journalism has no bias.

Libs have long since been the only people who assigned the WP any credibility, and they were it’s only readership, moderates and conservatives having long ago given up on the Post.

Its current readership is composed entirely of leftists who aren’t looking for information but rather affirmation of their own bias. They want an echo chamber not a newspaper. Leftists who despise objectivity are the ones leaving now.

Phase 1 was the paper losing subscribers as it turned itself into the newspaper version of MSNBC and cultivating a smaller subscriber base of committed lefties.

Phase 2 is losing these leftie subscribers as they try to right the ship.

Phase 3 is the hope that they can repair their reputation and win back the old subscriber base that they lost. Most likely it’s too late.

Phase 4, bankruptcy and sale of assets because the previous subscribers aren’t going to be fooled into coming back. They realized they could find unbiased news content from other sources and don’t need WaPo anymore.

Bye bye WaPo

What’s revealing to me about who the paper caters to is to check the comments section. NYTimes comments run a range from center right to progressive left, but they are all reasonable, polite and articulate. Washington Post comments read like they migrated their en masse from some crazy far left progressive Facebook group. Most are either just unintelligible or political platitudes, frequently with all caps involved. This is not a customer base for success and the paper seems so far gone that it would require firing way too many editors and reporters. So it’s sort of like an inoperable cancer at this point.

[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.

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

Their decline is made entirely of butthurt lefties leaving as the paper tries to save itself by remembering that journalism has no bias.

Libs have long since been the only people who assigned the WP any credibility, and they were it’s only readership, moderates and conservatives having long ago given up on the Post.

Its current readership is composed entirely of leftists who aren’t looking for information but rather affirmation of their own bias. They want an echo chamber not a newspaper. Leftists who despise objectivity are the ones leaving now.

Phase 1 was the paper losing subscribers as it turned itself into the newspaper version of MSNBC and cultivating a smaller subscriber base of committed lefties.

Phase 2 is losing these leftie subscribers as they try to right the ship.

Phase 3 is the hope that they can repair their reputation and win back the old subscriber base that they lost. Most likely it’s too late.

Phase 1 was leaning hard into being a national paper at the expense of local coverage. That lost them a lot of local subscribers who wanted local news not the same national news they could get from dozens of other outlets

[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.

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

Their decline is made entirely of butthurt lefties leaving as the paper tries to save itself by remembering that journalism has no bias.

Libs have long since been the only people who assigned the WP any credibility, and they were it’s only readership, moderates and conservatives having long ago given up on the Post.

Its current readership is composed entirely of leftists who aren’t looking for information but rather affirmation of their own bias. They want an echo chamber not a newspaper. Leftists who despise objectivity are the ones leaving now.

Phase 1 was the paper losing subscribers as it turned itself into the newspaper version of MSNBC and cultivating a smaller subscriber base of committed lefties.

Phase 2 is losing these leftie subscribers as they try to right the ship.

Phase 3 is the hope that they can repair their reputation and win back the old subscriber base that they lost. Most likely it’s too late.

Phase 1 was leaning hard into being a national paper at the expense of local coverage. That lost them a lot of local subscribers who wanted local news not the same national news they could get from dozens of other outlets

That happened at the Bezos acquisition when they closed the Gazette. They then compounded the problem by hiring out of towner liberal ideologues for the Metro desk. So when they reinvested in local reporting it was just crap. My favorite was the investigative report into why the MD flag is racist. Everyone in MD whether you’re Black, white or purple loves the state flag and no one cares.

[Anonymous]

Given what he did in the past in the UK, it wouldn't surprise me at all if corporate liability insurance did not want to cover WaPo with him at the helm. The guy is ethically-challenged and a walking lawsuit. I doubt he's learned the error of his ways given the lengths he went to try to silence the discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given what he did in the past in the UK, it wouldn't surprise me at all if corporate liability insurance did not want to cover WaPo with him at the helm. The guy is ethically-challenged and a walking lawsuit. I doubt he's learned the error of his ways given the lengths he went to try to silence the discussion.

The papers staff and editors going all in to undermine management is not going to end well for them in the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given what he did in the past in the UK, it wouldn't surprise me at all if corporate liability insurance did not want to cover WaPo with him at the helm. The guy is ethically-challenged and a walking lawsuit. I doubt he's learned the error of his ways given the lengths he went to try to silence the discussion.

The papers staff and editors going all in to undermine management is not going to end well for them in the end.

They sort of don’t have a choice — the Times is also breaking a lot of news about Lewis, the Post would look ridiculous if they didn’t report on him just because he’s their boss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given what he did in the past in the UK, it wouldn't surprise me at all if corporate liability insurance did not want to cover WaPo with him at the helm. The guy is ethically-challenged and a walking lawsuit. I doubt he's learned the error of his ways given the lengths he went to try to silence the discussion.

The papers staff and editors going all in to undermine management is not going to end well for them in the end.

They sort of don’t have a choice — the Times is also breaking a lot of news about Lewis, the Post would look ridiculous if they didn’t report on him just because he’s their boss.

Where do you think they are getting their scoops from?

Why do you think a competitor would want to undermine a competitor?

[Anonymous]

So, not out yet? Any chance that Lewis stays? Thought it was a good sign the planned addition from UK decided to stay there.