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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I remember when the Metro section of the Post was so robust, you went there first! When Jeff Bezos bought the paper everyone was so excited because he made major investments. My friends at the Post were thrilled too.

It seems those days are over. 240 reporters left in 2023 with most coming from the Metro desk including Darryl Fears, Paula Dvorak and Courtland Malloy.

That was really the only reason I subscribed. Now, I can cancel my $18 per month and just read it through Apple News. It's not worth it to me anymore.

I was already getting more through DC City Cast, Washington City Paper and DCist. I'll give to those publications.

Thanks Jeff Bezos.

Actually, yes thanks Jeff Bezos!
The Washington Post was worthless.
I'm happy to see the workers laid off and the Post on the verge of a long overdue death.

You are a terrible person. I mean, you understand you are going to burn in Hell for all eternity, right?

Will I have to read the Washington Post there? (Screams)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm a DP- Jeff can confirm, but personally I find her so abhorrent that I wouldn't mind it if her car fell off a bridge. She is everything that is wrong with the left.

That is a horrible thing to say and you have serious issues.

[Anonymous]

I got fed up with the Post's subscription service. Always hounding me to renew, saying my subscription ran out when it hadn't. That was the only reason I stopped the Post.

It's the common badgering done by magazines, newspapers. It's deceitful and ticks people off.

[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

This is where I'm at. If Post doesn't have local coverage and it's just a national paper I'm going to be getting my national coverage from NYT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post had to cut back on spending, but I think they went about it the wrong way. They offered buyouts and guess who took them -- the skilled reporters who can easily get a job elsewhere. Then you're left with a bunch of second stringers.

The second stringers didn't take buyouts because they know they're not easily employable elsewhere. For example, the front page currenty has an article about where they tested if you need to wash your dishes before putting them in the dishwasher -- leave that to Consumer Reports or Mythbusters. Or 13 Tips to make your job less stressful -- leave that to Buzzfeed.

WP should focus on local news, and politics as those are their niche areas where they can excel.

The problem with cuts is that local coverage is the only reason to subscribe. I can get the NY Times or WSJ for national news. When NBC and WTOP have better local political coverage than the paper, there is no reason to subscribe to the paper

WTOP is a joke.
They will be next.

That's what I thought too, but lately I think they've upped their content

[Anonymous]

They became a one trick pony like NPR. Everything was "black, black, black, gay, gay, gay, trans, trans, trans..."

And they wonder why the subscriptions plummeted. Turns out there just aren't enough gay blacks to keep a paper afloat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm a DP- Jeff can confirm, but personally I find her so abhorrent that I wouldn't mind it if her car fell off a bridge. She is everything that is wrong with the left.

That is a horrible thing to say and you have serious issues.

NP. Her job was to provoke. That’s it. She contributed nothing to serious journalism though and I doubt anyone at the post expected her to be a real journalist. Maybe she’ll have an opportunity to prove herself at her next gig.

[Anonymous]

I give the Post a 1 in 3 shot of surviving 2024 as is. I think the next area of reporting to be chopped is Sports (some were hinting at this last summer). I think there’s a slight chance that Bezos kills off the Post and uses it as a seed to create some some sort of reimagined news service.
Anyway times are going to be bleak for the Post in whatever form survives.

[Anonymous]

I grew up with a terrible local paper and have always felt incredibly lucky to have the Washington Post. I'll pay for the print edition to be delivered to my door as long as it's available. It's just a heartbreaking tragedy what is happening to news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I just canceled the NYT after 25 years of subscribing, due to their horribly biased Gaza war reporting. The minimization of the killing and traumatizing of Palestinian children disgusted me. Indefensible. I'll enjoy the extra $18 a month.

We must not be reading the same NYT...

[Anonymous]

Not printing Dave Berry’s year end review was the last straw for me

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I grew up with a terrible local paper and have always felt incredibly lucky to have the Washington Post. I'll pay for the print edition to be delivered to my door as long as it's available. It's just a heartbreaking tragedy what is happening to news.

One of the many reasons I cancelled my Post subscription was the failure for days at a time to receive the print edition. I would lodge a complaint on-line, I would call customer service. Zero help. I did have a deliverer call me once, angry that I was reporting them for failure to deliver. Anyway, after they cut the magazine and the Sunday comments, I had it with them. They are a dying company.
By the way when did paperboy become an adult occupation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Post had to cut back on spending, but I think they went about it the wrong way. They offered buyouts and guess who took them -- the skilled reporters who can easily get a job elsewhere. Then you're left with a bunch of second stringers.

The second stringers didn't take buyouts because they know they're not easily employable elsewhere. For example, the front page currenty has an article about where they tested if you need to wash your dishes before putting them in the dishwasher -- leave that to Consumer Reports or Mythbusters. Or 13 Tips to make your job less stressful -- leave that to Buzzfeed.

WP should focus on local news, and politics as those are their niche areas where they can excel.

Such a weird take

Most of the really, really good journalists have been out of the industry for 10-15 yrs. Yes, some great ones remained, but the vast majority of the skilled reporters have been gone for awhile. Not just at the Post, but everywhere.

The ones who’ve been hanging on at the Post are ones who either truly cannot imagine another line of work - a life outside of journalism - or have unsuccessfully tried to make a lateral move to another field and it hasn’t worked.

The claim that scores of highly talented people recently left the Post to easily find other jobs in journalism is nuts. There are like four quality journalism jobs left. These people have nowhere to go.

And the buzzfeed-style stuff in WashPo is not because of “second string reporters.” They could send inexperienced interns to cover the white house and supreme court if they wanted. The paper decided they want writers (of any level/talent/experience) writing about dishwashers. So you are getting articles about dishwashers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Post had to cut back on spending, but I think they went about it the wrong way. They offered buyouts and guess who took them -- the skilled reporters who can easily get a job elsewhere. Then you're left with a bunch of second stringers.

The second stringers didn't take buyouts because they know they're not easily employable elsewhere. For example, the front page currenty has an article about where they tested if you need to wash your dishes before putting them in the dishwasher -- leave that to Consumer Reports or Mythbusters. Or 13 Tips to make your job less stressful -- leave that to Buzzfeed.

WP should focus on local news, and politics as those are their niche areas where they can excel.

Such a weird take

Most of the really, really good journalists have been out of the industry for 10-15 yrs. Yes, some great ones remained, but the vast majority of the skilled reporters have been gone for awhile. Not just at the Post, but everywhere.

The ones who’ve been hanging on at the Post are ones who either truly cannot imagine another line of work - a life outside of journalism - or have unsuccessfully tried to make a lateral move to another field and it hasn’t worked.

The claim that scores of highly talented people recently left the Post to easily find other jobs in journalism is nuts. There are like four quality journalism jobs left. These people have nowhere to go.

And the buzzfeed-style stuff in WashPo is not because of “second string reporters.” They could send inexperienced interns to cover the white house and supreme court if they wanted. The paper decided they want writers (of any level/talent/experience) writing about dishwashers. So you are getting articles about dishwashers.

Agree with the last para and it's because they're catering to the online market. People look up things like do you need to wash your dishes before the dishwasher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm a DP- Jeff can confirm, but personally I find her so abhorrent that I wouldn't mind it if her car fell off a bridge. She is everything that is wrong with the left.

That is a horrible thing to say and you have serious issues.

NP. Her job was to provoke. That’s it. She contributed nothing to serious journalism though and I doubt anyone at the post expected her to be a real journalist. Maybe she’ll have an opportunity to prove herself at her next gig.

DP. There wasn't anything provocative about Dvorak's columns. She just served up a bunch of predictable, poorly written, liberal comfort food for folks who'd stick a "Hate Has No Home Here" sign in their front yard but obsess about getting their kids into a Big 3 school. Blah.