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

[Anonymous]

I actually got the print version until 3 years ago. Then switched to Sunday only. When they dropped the Post magazine that was the final straw and I cancelled Sunday too. I still pay for online but almost never read it. I read the NYT online daily. It’s sad, because I used to enjoy reading the Post.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whatever. You clearly never read it before.

DP. I grew up reading the WaPo. I read it every day until about two years ago, when we finally realized how utterly biased and absurd it is, at which point we canceled our subscription. The PP is correct. There is nothing serious or respectable about the WaPo any longer and it's been that way for some time.

I don't think the Post changed. I think you changed. And obviously I don't know anything about you personally, but everyone I know personally who has this opinion used to read the Washington Post but now watches a lot of Fox.

DP. We cancelled because the metro section could go days without reporting on anything from Northern Virginia. Growing up in Bethesda, I remember a robust metro section that actually reported on local news from all of the municipalities. If I'm not getting local news, then I might as well just subscribe to the NY times which has better national and international coverage than the post

[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.

Since local for you is Moscow that’s hardly surprising.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whatever. You clearly never read it before.

DP. I grew up reading the WaPo. I read it every day until about two years ago, when we finally realized how utterly biased and absurd it is, at which point we canceled our subscription. The PP is correct. There is nothing serious or respectable about the WaPo any longer and it's been that way for some time.

I don't think the Post changed. I think you changed. And obviously I don't know anything about you personally, but everyone I know personally who has this opinion used to read the Washington Post but now watches a lot of Fox.

DP. We cancelled because the metro section could go days without reporting on anything from Northern Virginia. Growing up in Bethesda, I remember a robust metro section that actually reported on local news from all of the municipalities. If I'm not getting local news, then I might as well just subscribe to the NY times which has better national and international coverage than the post

Yeah, "We cancelled because it used to cover local news but doesn't anymore" is different from "We cancelled because now it's just regurgitated woke punch lines"! The Post used to have whole bureaus in the local counties. Then they at least had one local reporter for each county. Now they have...what?

[Anonymous]

Why are you paying $18? I’ve renewed twice for 6 months at a time for $4. You might have to start the cancellation process to get the deal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whatever. You clearly never read it before.

DP. I grew up reading the WaPo. I read it every day until about two years ago, when we finally realized how utterly biased and absurd it is, at which point we canceled our subscription. The PP is correct. There is nothing serious or respectable about the WaPo any longer and it's been that way for some time.

I don't think the Post changed. I think you changed. And obviously I don't know anything about you personally, but everyone I know personally who has this opinion used to read the Washington Post but now watches a lot of Fox.

Not the PP you replied to, but Fox is biased the other way. It's possible to recognize different types of bias in various places, PP! I think it's worthwhile to check in on all news sources regularly to monitor the level of bias, and general nonsense various reporters are feeding the unwary public. Then you're less surprised when people believe Trump won the 2020 election, or when others want to defund the police or turn a blind eye to juvenile crime, both of which are untenable positions, and yet, some people still cling to them. The reporters that push these unbaked ideas are partially to blame, but the larger issue is that people insist on living in their little echo chambers with no critical thinking whatsoever.

So read all the news. You might surprise yourself. As a lefty, I recognize for example that we need more border control. Not because "immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country"; but because we can better serve these very courageous and competent people (you need both plus luck to survive the trek they made), who will definitely improve our nation's dynamism and gene pool with their can-do attitudes, if we control their entry, which then means we can shuttle them where employers need them, and we can reduce their number traipsing across people's lawns at the southern border.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whatever. You clearly never read it before.

DP. I grew up reading the WaPo. I read it every day until about two years ago, when we finally realized how utterly biased and absurd it is, at which point we canceled our subscription. The PP is correct. There is nothing serious or respectable about the WaPo any longer and it's been that way for some time.

I don't think the Post changed. I think you changed. And obviously I don't know anything about you personally, but everyone I know personally who has this opinion used to read the Washington Post but now watches a lot of Fox.

Not the PP you replied to, but Fox is biased the other way. It's possible to recognize different types of bias in various places, PP! I think it's worthwhile to check in on all news sources regularly to monitor the level of bias, and general nonsense various reporters are feeding the unwary public. Then you're less surprised when people believe Trump won the 2020 election, or when others want to defund the police or turn a blind eye to juvenile crime, both of which are untenable positions, and yet, some people still cling to them. The reporters that push these unbaked ideas are partially to blame, but the larger issue is that people insist on living in their little echo chambers with no critical thinking whatsoever.

So read all the news. You might surprise yourself. As a lefty, I recognize for example that we need more border control. Not because "immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country"; but because we can better serve these very courageous and competent people (you need both plus luck to survive the trek they made), who will definitely improve our nation's dynamism and gene pool with their can-do attitudes, if we control their entry, which then means we can shuttle them where employers need them, and we can reduce their number traipsing across people's lawns at the southern border.

Yeah, no. Everyone has biases, of course, but there is no equivalent between Fox and Washington Post. It's a false equivalence.

Also a big "Yeah, no" to the idea of "improving our gene pool" with immigrants. Eugenics from anonymous self-described lefties is still eugenics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whatever. You clearly never read it before.

DP. I grew up reading the WaPo. I read it every day until about two years ago, when we finally realized how utterly biased and absurd it is, at which point we canceled our subscription. The PP is correct. There is nothing serious or respectable about the WaPo any longer and it's been that way for some time.

I don't think the Post changed. I think you changed. And obviously I don't know anything about you personally, but everyone I know personally who has this opinion used to read the Washington Post but now watches a lot of Fox.

DP. We cancelled because the metro section could go days without reporting on anything from Northern Virginia. Growing up in Bethesda, I remember a robust metro section that actually reported on local news from all of the municipalities. If I'm not getting local news, then I might as well just subscribe to the NY times which has better national and international coverage than the post

Yeah, "We cancelled because it used to cover local news but doesn't anymore" is different from "We cancelled because now it's just regurgitated woke punch lines"! The Post used to have whole bureaus in the local counties. Then they at least had one local reporter for each county. Now they have...what?

The revenue that used to support those bureaus is gone.

The decimation of local news coverage in this country should concern everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dvorak and Malloy are leaving?

Malloy is already gone. Dvorak is leaving.

There are a lot of good journalists and columnists who have left or are leaving the Post, but Petula Dvorak has never had an original idea in her life. Every column she wrote was banal and utterly predictable.

WaPo and the metro used to be my go to news source. I will say I don’t remember many of the journalists’ names, but Petula stood out to me because she was so bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whatever. You clearly never read it before.

DP. I grew up reading the WaPo. I read it every day until about two years ago, when we finally realized how utterly biased and absurd it is, at which point we canceled our subscription. The PP is correct. There is nothing serious or respectable about the WaPo any longer and it's been that way for some time.

I don't think the Post changed. I think you changed. And obviously I don't know anything about you personally, but everyone I know personally who has this opinion used to read the Washington Post but now watches a lot of Fox.

Not the PP you replied to, but Fox is biased the other way. It's possible to recognize different types of bias in various places, PP! I think it's worthwhile to check in on all news sources regularly to monitor the level of bias, and general nonsense various reporters are feeding the unwary public. Then you're less surprised when people believe Trump won the 2020 election, or when others want to defund the police or turn a blind eye to juvenile crime, both of which are untenable positions, and yet, some people still cling to them. The reporters that push these unbaked ideas are partially to blame, but the larger issue is that people insist on living in their little echo chambers with no critical thinking whatsoever.

So read all the news. You might surprise yourself. As a lefty, I recognize for example that we need more border control. Not because "immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country"; but because we can better serve these very courageous and competent people (you need both plus luck to survive the trek they made), who will definitely improve our nation's dynamism and gene pool with their can-do attitudes, if we control their entry, which then means we can shuttle them where employers need them, and we can reduce their number traipsing across people's lawns at the southern border.

Yeah, no. Everyone has biases, of course, but there is no equivalent between Fox and Washington Post. It's a false equivalence.

Also a big "Yeah, no" to the idea of "improving our gene pool" with immigrants. Eugenics from anonymous self-described lefties is still eugenics.

PP you replied to. Sigh. Well, I can't help you if you're willfully blind. The left has just as much to reproach itself with as the right in general (not for Trump-specific items, that's a right-wing special), and this is common across all developed nations. The left usually is urban-and climate-friendly and protective of certain minorities, but ignores the rural poor and operational issues with immigration. The right is usually more rural-friendly and protective of traditional values, but ignores social and climate change and reflexively clamps down on immigration, even when it hurts their bottom line. If both sides talked to each other more, decades-old resentment wouldn't fester to the point that you can issue a blanket "yeah no" to anything concept that's not in your bubble, and claim eugenics instead of understanding actual demographic changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whatever. You clearly never read it before.

DP. I grew up reading the WaPo. I read it every day until about two years ago, when we finally realized how utterly biased and absurd it is, at which point we canceled our subscription. The PP is correct. There is nothing serious or respectable about the WaPo any longer and it's been that way for some time.

I don't think the Post changed. I think you changed. And obviously I don't know anything about you personally, but everyone I know personally who has this opinion used to read the Washington Post but now watches a lot of Fox.

DP. We cancelled because the metro section could go days without reporting on anything from Northern Virginia. Growing up in Bethesda, I remember a robust metro section that actually reported on local news from all of the municipalities. If I'm not getting local news, then I might as well just subscribe to the NY times which has better national and international coverage than the post

Yeah, "We cancelled because it used to cover local news but doesn't anymore" is different from "We cancelled because now it's just regurgitated woke punch lines"! The Post used to have whole bureaus in the local counties. Then they at least had one local reporter for each county. Now they have...what?

The revenue that used to support those bureaus is gone.

The decimation of local news coverage in this country should concern everyone.

I don't see how continuing to subscribe helps after the reporters are already gone. The local tv networks have better local news sections on their website than the largest newspaper in the city. That alone is reason to cancel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's the owner's fault. The editor was problematic, and that led to a revolt at the paper.

I subscribe, and I do have long-standing problems with WaPo, which mostly have to do with poor writing. I can read the same article in NYT and WaPo, and come away with a much clearer understanding and better references from the NYT piece than the WaPo piece.

The local news was always biased. The educational section is abysmal because the writer regurgitates trendy concepts with no
understanding of the real issues. There are way too many writers at WaPo that embed implicit bias in their headlines and pieces, instead of the more clinical approach of the NYT.

BUT.

WaPo does provide interesting political insight, and that's why I keep it. Also, I appreciate Capital Weather Gang.

+1 I agree with all you said, especially your "implied bias" comment.

[Anonymous]

NP. I used to love to read the Sunday magazine - remember Date Lab?! And the Peeps contest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Whatever. You clearly never read it before.

DP. I grew up reading the WaPo. I read it every day until about two years ago, when we finally realized how utterly biased and absurd it is, at which point we canceled our subscription. The PP is correct. There is nothing serious or respectable about the WaPo any longer and it's been that way for some time.

I don't think the Post changed. I think you changed. And obviously I don't know anything about you personally, but everyone I know personally who has this opinion used to read the Washington Post but now watches a lot of Fox.

Not the PP you replied to, but Fox is biased the other way. It's possible to recognize different types of bias in various places, PP! I think it's worthwhile to check in on all news sources regularly to monitor the level of bias, and general nonsense various reporters are feeding the unwary public. Then you're less surprised when people believe Trump won the 2020 election, or when others want to defund the police or turn a blind eye to juvenile crime, both of which are untenable positions, and yet, some people still cling to them. The reporters that push these unbaked ideas are partially to blame, but the larger issue is that people insist on living in their little echo chambers with no critical thinking whatsoever.

So read all the news. You might surprise yourself. As a lefty, I recognize for example that we need more border control. Not because "immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country"; but because we can better serve these very courageous and competent people (you need both plus luck to survive the trek they made), who will definitely improve our nation's dynamism and gene pool with their can-do attitudes, if we control their entry, which then means we can shuttle them where employers need them, and we can reduce their number traipsing across people's lawns at the southern border.

Yeah, no. Everyone has biases, of course, but there is no equivalent between Fox and Washington Post. It's a false equivalence.

Also a big "Yeah, no" to the idea of "improving our gene pool" with immigrants. Eugenics from anonymous self-described lefties is still eugenics.

PP you replied to. Sigh. Well, I can't help you if you're willfully blind. The left has just as much to reproach itself with as the right in general (not for Trump-specific items, that's a right-wing special), and this is common across all developed nations. The left usually is urban-and climate-friendly and protective of certain minorities, but ignores the rural poor and operational issues with immigration. The right is usually more rural-friendly and protective of traditional values, but ignores social and climate change and reflexively clamps down on immigration, even when it hurts their bottom line. If both sides talked to each other more, decades-old resentment wouldn't fester to the point that you can issue a blanket "yeah no" to anything concept that's not in your bubble, and claim eugenics instead of understanding actual demographic changes.

When you refer to "the gene pool" to describe demographic changes, that's eugenics.