Wash Post—new editor from WSJ!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't speak for all of us WaPo employees, but I'm not happy....

Your employer is circling the drain and you want one final DEI hire to be the person who fires everyone and turns out the lights.

The paper is owned by the richest man in the world, who just endorsed a new long-term 10-year business plan. I don't honestly think it matters to him how much money it's losing, and I think it's extremely unlikely any of these new people will be firing everyone and turning out the lights.

And while you're using "DEI hire" as a racially coded stand-in for "unqualified," I'd say "random editor at the Telegraph who's never worked in U.S. journalism" also sounds unqualified to run a major newspaper here.

DP. It was actually a little funny and the fact that you cannot just laugh at the absurdity of it a little is very telling for what ails the paper.

Oh, believe me, plenty of people at the paper are laughing at the absurdity of some of these management decisions. Just not at the racist jokes about them.

It wasn’t a racist joke though. It was a joke pointing to the absurdity of making management diversity your primary concern above all when your Publisher has told you directly that the paper is hemorrhaging money and no one is reading your work.

Since you seem incapable of having a sense of humor, let me ask sincerely if it would make you feel better if the person making these changes was a Black woman?

Considering that it was a Black woman that reigned in the similar problem at WAMU/DCist, I’m going to speculate that the answer is no.

I guess I just don't think jokes about DEI hires are funny, sorry; if that makes me "incapable of having a sense of humor," I guess I'll have to live with that shame.

I don't think anyone is saying management diversity is their primary concern. Or at least, not anyone I've spoken to. I think the real primary concern is that no one has heard any details at all about this new plan the previous editor disliked enough that she lost her job rather than carry it out. I do think it's pretty outlandish to just go hire people you know without even looking around at other possible candidates, regardless of diversity. You think it's totally fine for the CEO to hire the two top positions for half of the company without consulting or considering anyone else, fine, but I don't think that would fly at many other places. It certainly wouldn't fly at any other newspapers.

FWIW, I'm a middle-aged white guy, so I'm theoretically better off if other middle-aged white guys start giving middle-aged white guys promotions we don't have to compete with anyone else for. But that doesn't mean I think it's a particularly smart way to run a business.

Why would you assume that he didn’t have to compete for the job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't speak for all of us WaPo employees, but I'm not happy....

Your employer is circling the drain and you want one final DEI hire to be the person who fires everyone and turns out the lights.

The paper is owned by the richest man in the world, who just endorsed a new long-term 10-year business plan. I don't honestly think it matters to him how much money it's losing, and I think it's extremely unlikely any of these new people will be firing everyone and turning out the lights.

And while you're using "DEI hire" as a racially coded stand-in for "unqualified," I'd say "random editor at the Telegraph who's never worked in U.S. journalism" also sounds unqualified to run a major newspaper here.

DP. It was actually a little funny and the fact that you cannot just laugh at the absurdity of it a little is very telling for what ails the paper.

Oh, believe me, plenty of people at the paper are laughing at the absurdity of some of these management decisions. Just not at the racist jokes about them.

It wasn’t a racist joke though. It was a joke pointing to the absurdity of making management diversity your primary concern above all when your Publisher has told you directly that the paper is hemorrhaging money and no one is reading your work.

Since you seem incapable of having a sense of humor, let me ask sincerely if it would make you feel better if the person making these changes was a Black woman?

Considering that it was a Black woman that reigned in the similar problem at WAMU/DCist, I’m going to speculate that the answer is no.

I guess I just don't think jokes about DEI hires are funny, sorry; if that makes me "incapable of having a sense of humor," I guess I'll have to live with that shame.

I don't think anyone is saying management diversity is their primary concern. Or at least, not anyone I've spoken to. I think the real primary concern is that no one has heard any details at all about this new plan the previous editor disliked enough that she lost her job rather than carry it out. I do think it's pretty outlandish to just go hire people you know without even looking around at other possible candidates, regardless of diversity. You think it's totally fine for the CEO to hire the two top positions for half of the company without consulting or considering anyone else, fine, but I don't think that would fly at many other places. It certainly wouldn't fly at any other newspapers.

FWIW, I'm a middle-aged white guy, so I'm theoretically better off if other middle-aged white guys start giving middle-aged white guys promotions we don't have to compete with anyone else for. But that doesn't mean I think it's a particularly smart way to run a business.

WaPo employee PP here. Not newsroom though. And I guess I'm the only one on this thread that was there. It's a shame the media is taking shots at the DEI question, because the first part of the reporter's question was not DEI-related but rather much closer to the post I've quoted. The CEO is just hiring his buddies, and no indication that there was a search for the best person for the job. And this isn't an isolated incident - every single exec hire has been his buddies, even some folks further down the management chain. It has already led to an "us vs them" mentality between exec and staff, which obviously isn't good for morale.

And while the traffic declines are real, and bad, every media outlet is facing a similar issue as Facebook, Google, etc, pull back from promoting news.

Because other than the NYT you're all the same.

[Anonymous]

It is strange to me that people seem both surprised and indignant that the new publisher is bringing a few of his own people over. DH and I are in the private sector and every time there is a new exec, they bring over some of their top people and some people get pushed out - it is a tale as old as time. This isn't the government where the politicals change and the worker bees stay the same.

[Anonymous]

Bros being bros. So misogynistic and brash and gross.

[Anonymous]

If 4 women did this believe me there would be hell to pay. It is not OK and I fear the Post has taken the freaking Trump train. Canceling my subscription

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bros being bros. So misogynistic and brash and gross.

No, as PP noted, it's perfectly normal. It's not misogynistic or brash or gross.

I hope they're able to salvage the Post. She needs help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't speak for all of us WaPo employees, but I'm not happy....

Your employer is circling the drain and you want one final DEI hire to be the person who fires everyone and turns out the lights.

The paper is owned by the richest man in the world, who just endorsed a new long-term 10-year business plan. I don't honestly think it matters to him how much money it's losing, and I think it's extremely unlikely any of these new people will be firing everyone and turning out the lights.

And while you're using "DEI hire" as a racially coded stand-in for "unqualified," I'd say "random editor at the Telegraph who's never worked in U.S. journalism" also sounds unqualified to run a major newspaper here.

DP. It was actually a little funny and the fact that you cannot just laugh at the absurdity of it a little is very telling for what ails the paper.

Oh, believe me, plenty of people at the paper are laughing at the absurdity of some of these management decisions. Just not at the racist jokes about them.

It wasn’t a racist joke though. It was a joke pointing to the absurdity of making management diversity your primary concern above all when your Publisher has told you directly that the paper is hemorrhaging money and no one is reading your work.

Since you seem incapable of having a sense of humor, let me ask sincerely if it would make you feel better if the person making these changes was a Black woman?

Considering that it was a Black woman that reigned in the similar problem at WAMU/DCist, I’m going to speculate that the answer is no.

I guess I just don't think jokes about DEI hires are funny, sorry; if that makes me "incapable of having a sense of humor," I guess I'll have to live with that shame.

I don't think anyone is saying management diversity is their primary concern. Or at least, not anyone I've spoken to. I think the real primary concern is that no one has heard any details at all about this new plan the previous editor disliked enough that she lost her job rather than carry it out. I do think it's pretty outlandish to just go hire people you know without even looking around at other possible candidates, regardless of diversity. You think it's totally fine for the CEO to hire the two top positions for half of the company without consulting or considering anyone else, fine, but I don't think that would fly at many other places. It certainly wouldn't fly at any other newspapers.

FWIW, I'm a middle-aged white guy, so I'm theoretically better off if other middle-aged white guys start giving middle-aged white guys promotions we don't have to compete with anyone else for. But that doesn't mean I think it's a particularly smart way to run a business.

Why would you assume that he didn’t have to compete for the job?

Because the publisher basically said he didn’t interview anyone and just picked people he wanted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been a faithful reader for 40 years and just cancelled my subscription. Going to try NY Times. Maybe WaPo can get back on track. Maybe this editor can help.

NYT is also SJW newspaper at this point so it won’t be better.

Huh? The NYT is the newspaper of record in the United States. There's no better publication.

Pro-tip: Failing to parrot your biases doesn't make the paper "SJW."

Besides, facts have a well-known liberal bias.

This is exactly why the NYT sucks now because of arrogant people like you. Democrats are not much better at following evidence and facts and in comparison to Republicans. Most people only accept the “facts” when it is consistent with their underlying beliefs and very few people objectively evaluate things anymore. Almost everyone lives in an internet rabbit hole at this point and social media algorithms are reinforcing this ridiculous partisanship where everyone is increasingly disconnected from reality.

Evidence? Please compare the two.

Dems refused to acknowledge the lab leak theory for COVID. Now look at it ..it may be the most plausible story for the origins of covid out there.

Dems hated science because it was supposedly racist to claim that covid could have been leaked by the Chinese.

What “evidence and facts” were the Ds not following at that time?

John Stewart put it perfectly in 2021, "The name of the virus is the same name as the lab. Show me your business card!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been a faithful reader for 40 years and just cancelled my subscription. Going to try NY Times. Maybe WaPo can get back on track. Maybe this editor can help.

NYT is also SJW newspaper at this point so it won’t be better.

I think that's what PP wants. Apparently the Post being independent and not a Dem cheerleader is too far right.

The problem is not the Post being a cheerleader for Democrats. The problem is that the reporters at the Post (and I presume many editors too) believe that they should be infusing their work with their niche far-left progressive Twitter user ideology as a matter professional practice.

Aren't those the same thing(ish)?

[Anonymous]

Can he please get rid of the WP Shopping Guide? still blasting out circulars barf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is strange to me that people seem both surprised and indignant that the new publisher is bringing a few of his own people over. DH and I are in the private sector and every time there is a new exec, they bring over some of their top people and some people get pushed out - it is a tale as old as time. This isn't the government where the politicals change and the worker bees stay the same.

Bringing in trusted and competent people to right the ship is crisis management 101.

Washington Post reporters are just showing how out of touch with real world life they are with these complaints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't speak for all of us WaPo employees, but I'm not happy....

Your employer is circling the drain and you want one final DEI hire to be the person who fires everyone and turns out the lights.

The paper is owned by the richest man in the world, who just endorsed a new long-term 10-year business plan. I don't honestly think it matters to him how much money it's losing, and I think it's extremely unlikely any of these new people will be firing everyone and turning out the lights.

And while you're using "DEI hire" as a racially coded stand-in for "unqualified," I'd say "random editor at the Telegraph who's never worked in U.S. journalism" also sounds unqualified to run a major newspaper here.

DP. It was actually a little funny and the fact that you cannot just laugh at the absurdity of it a little is very telling for what ails the paper.

Oh, believe me, plenty of people at the paper are laughing at the absurdity of some of these management decisions. Just not at the racist jokes about them.

It wasn’t a racist joke though. It was a joke pointing to the absurdity of making management diversity your primary concern above all when your Publisher has told you directly that the paper is hemorrhaging money and no one is reading your work.

Since you seem incapable of having a sense of humor, let me ask sincerely if it would make you feel better if the person making these changes was a Black woman?

Considering that it was a Black woman that reigned in the similar problem at WAMU/DCist, I’m going to speculate that the answer is no.

I guess I just don't think jokes about DEI hires are funny, sorry; if that makes me "incapable of having a sense of humor," I guess I'll have to live with that shame.

I don't think anyone is saying management diversity is their primary concern. Or at least, not anyone I've spoken to. I think the real primary concern is that no one has heard any details at all about this new plan the previous editor disliked enough that she lost her job rather than carry it out. I do think it's pretty outlandish to just go hire people you know without even looking around at other possible candidates, regardless of diversity. You think it's totally fine for the CEO to hire the two top positions for half of the company without consulting or considering anyone else, fine, but I don't think that would fly at many other places. It certainly wouldn't fly at any other newspapers.

FWIW, I'm a middle-aged white guy, so I'm theoretically better off if other middle-aged white guys start giving middle-aged white guys promotions we don't have to compete with anyone else for. But that doesn't mean I think it's a particularly smart way to run a business.

WaPo employee PP here. Not newsroom though. And I guess I'm the only one on this thread that was there. It's a shame the media is taking shots at the DEI question, because the first part of the reporter's question was not DEI-related but rather much closer to the post I've quoted. The CEO is just hiring his buddies, and no indication that there was a search for the best person for the job. And this isn't an isolated incident - every single exec hire has been his buddies, even some folks further down the management chain. It has already led to an "us vs them" mentality between exec and staff, which obviously isn't good for morale.

And while the traffic declines are real, and bad, every media outlet is facing a similar issue as Facebook, Google, etc, pull back from promoting news.

Wait, you think readership is down because Facebook & Google aren't promoting news? And it has nothing to do with editorial quality? You're fooling yourself, friend. If WaPo was writing anything worth reading, people would seek it out at the source. The story of the century is in our back yard and no "reporters" are curious enough to demand answers on the origins of covid, demand government accountability. No interest whatsoever. That's a story worth reading, but you don't employ actual journalists that hold truth to power and haven't for a long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't speak for all of us WaPo employees, but I'm not happy....

Your employer is circling the drain and you want one final DEI hire to be the person who fires everyone and turns out the lights.

The paper is owned by the richest man in the world, who just endorsed a new long-term 10-year business plan. I don't honestly think it matters to him how much money it's losing, and I think it's extremely unlikely any of these new people will be firing everyone and turning out the lights.

And while you're using "DEI hire" as a racially coded stand-in for "unqualified," I'd say "random editor at the Telegraph who's never worked in U.S. journalism" also sounds unqualified to run a major newspaper here.

DP. It was actually a little funny and the fact that you cannot just laugh at the absurdity of it a little is very telling for what ails the paper.

Oh, believe me, plenty of people at the paper are laughing at the absurdity of some of these management decisions. Just not at the racist jokes about them.

It wasn’t a racist joke though. It was a joke pointing to the absurdity of making management diversity your primary concern above all when your Publisher has told you directly that the paper is hemorrhaging money and no one is reading your work.

Since you seem incapable of having a sense of humor, let me ask sincerely if it would make you feel better if the person making these changes was a Black woman?

Considering that it was a Black woman that reigned in the similar problem at WAMU/DCist, I’m going to speculate that the answer is no.

I guess I just don't think jokes about DEI hires are funny, sorry; if that makes me "incapable of having a sense of humor," I guess I'll have to live with that shame.

I don't think anyone is saying management diversity is their primary concern. Or at least, not anyone I've spoken to. I think the real primary concern is that no one has heard any details at all about this new plan the previous editor disliked enough that she lost her job rather than carry it out. I do think it's pretty outlandish to just go hire people you know without even looking around at other possible candidates, regardless of diversity. You think it's totally fine for the CEO to hire the two top positions for half of the company without consulting or considering anyone else, fine, but I don't think that would fly at many other places. It certainly wouldn't fly at any other newspapers.

FWIW, I'm a middle-aged white guy, so I'm theoretically better off if other middle-aged white guys start giving middle-aged white guys promotions we don't have to compete with anyone else for. But that doesn't mean I think it's a particularly smart way to run a business.

WaPo employee PP here. Not newsroom though. And I guess I'm the only one on this thread that was there. It's a shame the media is taking shots at the DEI question, because the first part of the reporter's question was not DEI-related but rather much closer to the post I've quoted. The CEO is just hiring his buddies, and no indication that there was a search for the best person for the job. And this isn't an isolated incident - every single exec hire has been his buddies, even some folks further down the management chain. It has already led to an "us vs them" mentality between exec and staff, which obviously isn't good for morale.

And while the traffic declines are real, and bad, every media outlet is facing a similar issue as Facebook, Google, etc, pull back from promoting news.

Are “his buddies” competent?

The Publisher made a very precise criticism of you people, saying that he’s heard all the talk but has seen none of the results.

Why don’t you show some humility, sit back and let the guy show if he can produce results. Otherwise you look silly being a failure and wanting to continue doing the same things that are failing and then complaining and trying to block the only one trying to do something different.

I would also just say that the arrogance runs so deep that it surprises me but shouldn’t that you think you know how to run a newsroom better than the guy who was hired because he has experience successfully running a newsroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't speak for all of us WaPo employees, but I'm not happy....

Your employer is circling the drain and you want one final DEI hire to be the person who fires everyone and turns out the lights.

The paper is owned by the richest man in the world, who just endorsed a new long-term 10-year business plan. I don't honestly think it matters to him how much money it's losing, and I think it's extremely unlikely any of these new people will be firing everyone and turning out the lights.

And while you're using "DEI hire" as a racially coded stand-in for "unqualified," I'd say "random editor at the Telegraph who's never worked in U.S. journalism" also sounds unqualified to run a major newspaper here.

DP. It was actually a little funny and the fact that you cannot just laugh at the absurdity of it a little is very telling for what ails the paper.

Oh, believe me, plenty of people at the paper are laughing at the absurdity of some of these management decisions. Just not at the racist jokes about them.

It wasn’t a racist joke though. It was a joke pointing to the absurdity of making management diversity your primary concern above all when your Publisher has told you directly that the paper is hemorrhaging money and no one is reading your work.

Since you seem incapable of having a sense of humor, let me ask sincerely if it would make you feel better if the person making these changes was a Black woman?

Considering that it was a Black woman that reigned in the similar problem at WAMU/DCist, I’m going to speculate that the answer is no.

I guess I just don't think jokes about DEI hires are funny, sorry; if that makes me "incapable of having a sense of humor," I guess I'll have to live with that shame.

I don't think anyone is saying management diversity is their primary concern. Or at least, not anyone I've spoken to. I think the real primary concern is that no one has heard any details at all about this new plan the previous editor disliked enough that she lost her job rather than carry it out. I do think it's pretty outlandish to just go hire people you know without even looking around at other possible candidates, regardless of diversity. You think it's totally fine for the CEO to hire the two top positions for half of the company without consulting or considering anyone else, fine, but I don't think that would fly at many other places. It certainly wouldn't fly at any other newspapers.

FWIW, I'm a middle-aged white guy, so I'm theoretically better off if other middle-aged white guys start giving middle-aged white guys promotions we don't have to compete with anyone else for. But that doesn't mean I think it's a particularly smart way to run a business.

WaPo employee PP here. Not newsroom though. And I guess I'm the only one on this thread that was there. It's a shame the media is taking shots at the DEI question, because the first part of the reporter's question was not DEI-related but rather much closer to the post I've quoted. The CEO is just hiring his buddies, and no indication that there was a search for the best person for the job. And this isn't an isolated incident - every single exec hire has been his buddies, even some folks further down the management chain. It has already led to an "us vs them" mentality between exec and staff, which obviously isn't good for morale.

And while the traffic declines are real, and bad, every media outlet is facing a similar issue as Facebook, Google, etc, pull back from promoting news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't speak for all of us WaPo employees, but I'm not happy....

Your employer is circling the drain and you want one final DEI hire to be the person who fires everyone and turns out the lights.

The paper is owned by the richest man in the world, who just endorsed a new long-term 10-year business plan. I don't honestly think it matters to him how much money it's losing, and I think it's extremely unlikely any of these new people will be firing everyone and turning out the lights.

And while you're using "DEI hire" as a racially coded stand-in for "unqualified," I'd say "random editor at the Telegraph who's never worked in U.S. journalism" also sounds unqualified to run a major newspaper here.

DP. It was actually a little funny and the fact that you cannot just laugh at the absurdity of it a little is very telling for what ails the paper.

Oh, believe me, plenty of people at the paper are laughing at the absurdity of some of these management decisions. Just not at the racist jokes about them.

It wasn’t a racist joke though. It was a joke pointing to the absurdity of making management diversity your primary concern above all when your Publisher has told you directly that the paper is hemorrhaging money and no one is reading your work.

Since you seem incapable of having a sense of humor, let me ask sincerely if it would make you feel better if the person making these changes was a Black woman?

Considering that it was a Black woman that reigned in the similar problem at WAMU/DCist, I’m going to speculate that the answer is no.

I guess I just don't think jokes about DEI hires are funny, sorry; if that makes me "incapable of having a sense of humor," I guess I'll have to live with that shame.

I don't think anyone is saying management diversity is their primary concern. Or at least, not anyone I've spoken to. I think the real primary concern is that no one has heard any details at all about this new plan the previous editor disliked enough that she lost her job rather than carry it out. I do think it's pretty outlandish to just go hire people you know without even looking around at other possible candidates, regardless of diversity. You think it's totally fine for the CEO to hire the two top positions for half of the company without consulting or considering anyone else, fine, but I don't think that would fly at many other places. It certainly wouldn't fly at any other newspapers.

FWIW, I'm a middle-aged white guy, so I'm theoretically better off if other middle-aged white guys start giving middle-aged white guys promotions we don't have to compete with anyone else for. But that doesn't mean I think it's a particularly smart way to run a business.

WaPo employee PP here. Not newsroom though. And I guess I'm the only one on this thread that was there. It's a shame the media is taking shots at the DEI question, because the first part of the reporter's question was not DEI-related but rather much closer to the post I've quoted. The CEO is just hiring his buddies, and no indication that there was a search for the best person for the job. And this isn't an isolated incident - every single exec hire has been his buddies, even some folks further down the management chain. It has already led to an "us vs them" mentality between exec and staff, which obviously isn't good for morale.

And while the traffic declines are real, and bad, every media outlet is facing a similar issue as Facebook, Google, etc, pull back from promoting news.

It is fitting on multiple levels that you are using the same excuses about decline of interest in your work as was made - even in the Washington Post itself - about rising violent crime in DC. It’s happening everywhere! Except that it’s not and your job to make sure that you are the exception.