Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:It's pretty insane the lack of interest and reporting on it.
Uh, well, maybe you shouldn't have canceled your subscription to the Washington Post. This is the kind of story they would have had a whole team of people covering, until all their subscribers decided they had to protest Bezos and cripple the Metro section in the process. Now one else in DC has the resources to fill the gap that is left.
Boy, you got that ass backwards. First, Bezos took a dump on the paper. Then people started to leave. Then the paper (and editorial board!) somehow got even worse and more people left. That’s kinda how it goes.
Subscriptions *tripled* after Bezos took over. Then, in 2024, he killed the Kamala Harris endorsement. Then hundreds of thousands of snowflakes decided they had to cancel their subscriptions because they were big mad about an editorial page they never previously spent three seconds thinking about. If you were among them, and now you're complaining about the lack of coverage of something or other, well, you're complaining about a problem that you created. Canceling subscriptions to newspapers is a pretty effective way to destroy them. There's no levers they can pull to replace that revenue.
I know this is off-topic, but I completely agree with you. I think people have very short memories. I remember not too long ago, so many people were bragging that they had canceled their Washington Post subscriptions. Now those same people or the same demographic are lamenting that it laid off journalists. Which is sad for us in this area because the Washington Post is our local paper.
To the credit of local news stations, I can’t remember who, but it was mentioned in local news when it first started. But the attention it received was negligent. It was mentioned last night on national news. It’s getting the attention now, but my mind is blown that it had not received much attention prior.