Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today’s layoffs of 1/3 of Post employees is the final straw for me. I’m cancelling my subscription. I held onto it because A) want to support their journalists and B) it was my go-to for DC metro news. Can’t continue to support the empty shell Bezos is making the Post into.

Where do you gets DC metro news from these days? I don’t have regular TV, just streaming, so I don’t watch our local news channels.

Dumb. There's nothing that can replace the Post. Come back in 50 years. Maybe something will eventually emerge.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today’s layoffs of 1/3 of Post employees is the final straw for me. I’m cancelling my subscription. I held onto it because A) want to support their journalists and B) it was my go-to for DC metro news. Can’t continue to support the empty shell Bezos is making the Post into.

Where do you gets DC metro news from these days? I don’t have regular TV, just streaming, so I don’t watch our local news channels.

Dumb. There's nothing that can replace the Post. Come back in 50 years. Maybe something will eventually emerge.

The Washington Times is a great newspaper.

+1

It is much better than the Post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love these people who cancel their subscription to the Post, and then want to know what they can read instead. This is like burning down the Smithsonian museums and then being like "what other museums in DC can I go to instead?"

I want a paper that reviews books, talks sports and has actual news beyond “billionaires need tax breaks.”

Get real.

You should try actually reading the Washington Post sometime. Sounds like you're unfamiliar with its work.

Been reading The Post since the 70s.

I worked there, too.

Nice try with the shade though. B+ for effort.

Obviously, they covered sports and books and all the rest before the public decided to cripple the paper because they were so mad about something that happened with an editorial page that they didn't even read. So maybe you're actually mad at people who canceled their subscriptions rather than the newspaper. And, I mean, has there ever been a single story published in the entire history of the Washington Post about how billionaires need tax breaks? What?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love these people who cancel their subscription to the Post, and then want to know what they can read instead. This is like burning down the Smithsonian museums and then being like "what other museums in DC can I go to instead?"

I want a paper that reviews books, talks sports and has actual news beyond “billionaires need tax breaks.”

Get real.

You should try actually reading the Washington Post sometime. Sounds like you're unfamiliar with its work.

Been reading The Post since the 70s.

I worked there, too.

Nice try with the shade though. B+ for effort.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Today’s layoffs of 1/3 of Post employees is the final straw for me. I’m cancelling my subscription. I held onto it because A) want to support their journalists and B) it was my go-to for DC metro news. Can’t continue to support the empty shell Bezos is making the Post into.

Where do you gets DC metro news from these days? I don’t have regular TV, just streaming, so I don’t watch our local news channels.

Dumb. There's nothing that can replace the Post. Come back in 50 years. Maybe something will eventually emerge.

The Washington Times is a great newspaper.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love these people who cancel their subscription to the Post, and then want to know what they can read instead. This is like burning down the Smithsonian museums and then being like "what other museums in DC can I go to instead?"

I want a paper that reviews books, talks sports and has actual news beyond “billionaires need tax breaks.”

Get real.

You should try actually reading the Washington Post sometime. Sounds like you're unfamiliar with its work.

Anonymous wrote:Love these people who claim to care about politics and public policy but won't subscribe to the Post. Apparently you don't care that much!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love these people who cancel their subscription to the Post, and then want to know what they can read instead. This is like burning down the Smithsonian museums and then being like "what other museums in DC can I go to instead?"

I want a paper that reviews books, talks sports and has actual news beyond “billionaires need tax breaks.”

Get real.

Anonymous wrote:Love these people who cancel their subscription to the Post, and then want to know what they can read instead. This is like burning down the Smithsonian museums and then being like "what other museums in DC can I go to instead?"

Anonymous wrote:Washington City Paper, Washington Informer, Capitol Hill Corner, Hey DC, the 51st, WAMU, WPFW, WTOP, all the ANC listserves, etc. I've been having to cobble things together for a while since the Post's Metro coverage started it's slide years ago.

Didn't cancel before but there will not be anything I care to read. They already have a health section, which is ok. Their national and food sections are not as good as NYT. Losing the book section. They will have to create a business section out of whole cloth since they basically already did away with it. Not much left for me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love these people who claim to care about politics and public policy but won't subscribe to the Post. Apparently you don't care that much!

DP. I subscribe to the WSJ, Post and NYTimes. (and Bloomberg!). If the Post doesn’t have decent local news then there is truly no reason for me to keep my subscription. The only thing I will miss is Capitol Weather Gang but I guess I will just follow Matthew Capucci’s socials.

+1 there are tons of options. Democracy won’t die in darkness. I’m not subscribing because it used to be good.

There's only a handful of news organizations in the entire world that can match the Post.

Could not can. It is crap now.

The Post just won two Pulitzer prizes, after winning three the year before that, and three more in the year before that. You people are ridiculous.

All these idiots are mad about the editorial pages, which THEY NEVER EVEN READ IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Canceling your subscription and, in the process, destroying a newspaper because you're mad about the editorial page that most people completely ignored is just bizarre. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

It's not about the editorial pages, you are missing the point. It's about the loss of local news, sports, and all the other things they have slashed today. I have the NYT and WSJ for national and international news. The Post was the local paper, with good coverage of the business of Washington (the government). Now it is going to just be the business of Washington. I don't need an expensive subscription for that when I can get that elsewhere.

We don't know all the people who were fired today but how many of those Pulitzer winners are still Post reporters? I think you are thinking the Post is the same as what it was a year ago or two years ago. It isn't even close.

More than 300,000 people canceled their subscriptions to the Post after Bezos killed the paper's endorsement of Kamala back in 2024. Those cancellations are what forced the paper to cut coverage of sports and local news and all the rest. Now you're canceling your subscription because it's not covering sports and local news and all the rest. If you and other people do that, that will force even more cuts in their coverage, which will prompt even more people to cancel their subscriptions. This is how newspapers die. Bezos surely deserves lots of blame. But so do all those people who canceled their subscriptions because that's what set off this downward spiral. And what exactly did canceling those subscriptions accomplish? Except for decimating one of the world's great news outlets and forcing the layoffs of many of the best journalists in the country, many of whom will surely now leave the profession?

Oh geez. What sent the Post on its spiral? It was its owner and management. Not the people who canceled subscriptions. Stop being an apologist for Bezos and company. You’re claiming the Post’s demise on the customers is absurd. And it’s exactly what Bezos and team want.

I feel for the many incredible journalists at the Post and would gladly pay for a subscription to their Substack or next publication. But not WaPo.

So mealy mouthed. You think it was, like, vibes that sent the Post on its spiral? No. It's money -- the money that stopped coming in when hundreds of thousands of people decided to cancel their subscriptions because (of all things) they were mad about the editorial page not endorsing Kamala. Before 2024, no one even gave a shit whom the Post endorsed in any presidential election. Those people had the right to cancel, of course, but they should also acknowledge that their protest didn't accomplish anything and created the dire situation the Post now finds itself in.

Sorry but it’s not my responsibility to pay for something I no longer read because it is no longer useful. The NYT seems to have been able to figure out how to drive subscriptions and clicks. Same with the WSJ.

If the public boycotted the Times or the Journal because of something stupid their owners did, like they did with the Post, the exact same thing would happen to the Times and Journal. They'd have to impose massive cuts in coverage, and then people would cancel because they didnt like the coverage anymore, and we'd be speculating about whether the Times and Journal would go under.

Sure, but so far that hasn’t happened. Bezos and Lewis have done this to the Post, not the former subscribers.

The subscription numbers dropped when Bezos bought the Post and never recovered. You can't deny that.

Actually, we can deny that because it’s not true. When Bezos initially bought the post, subscriptions rose.

And for a while, the Post was doing fairly well in a tough market for legacy publications. He has systematically hacked away at the Post and made what are presumably deliberate and ideological choices to neutralize the Post to satisfy Trump.

He also hired managers who are complete incompetents. The result is he has precipitously lost subscribers for the Post.

The print circulation has continuously declined. It's below 100,000 since last June.

Digital subscriptions peaked at 3 million in 2013-2020 with Bezos' purchase, but has experienced a slow, but steady decline since then. I ascribe that digital surge to the big move of media to the Internet as heralded by the Bezos purchase, but the Post never regained the popularity it once experienced before the Internet killed print media. The Post clung to the old ways instead of embracing change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love these people who claim to care about politics and public policy but won't subscribe to the Post. Apparently you don't care that much!

DP. I subscribe to the WSJ, Post and NYTimes. (and Bloomberg!). If the Post doesn’t have decent local news then there is truly no reason for me to keep my subscription. The only thing I will miss is Capitol Weather Gang but I guess I will just follow Matthew Capucci’s socials.

+1 there are tons of options. Democracy won’t die in darkness. I’m not subscribing because it used to be good.

There's only a handful of news organizations in the entire world that can match the Post.

Could not can. It is crap now.

The Post just won two Pulitzer prizes, after winning three the year before that, and three more in the year before that. You people are ridiculous.

All these idiots are mad about the editorial pages, which THEY NEVER EVEN READ IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Canceling your subscription and, in the process, destroying a newspaper because you're mad about the editorial page that most people completely ignored is just bizarre. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

It's not about the editorial pages, you are missing the point. It's about the loss of local news, sports, and all the other things they have slashed today. I have the NYT and WSJ for national and international news. The Post was the local paper, with good coverage of the business of Washington (the government). Now it is going to just be the business of Washington. I don't need an expensive subscription for that when I can get that elsewhere.

We don't know all the people who were fired today but how many of those Pulitzer winners are still Post reporters? I think you are thinking the Post is the same as what it was a year ago or two years ago. It isn't even close.

More than 300,000 people canceled their subscriptions to the Post after Bezos killed the paper's endorsement of Kamala back in 2024. Those cancellations are what forced the paper to cut coverage of sports and local news and all the rest. Now you're canceling your subscription because it's not covering sports and local news and all the rest. If you and other people do that, that will force even more cuts in their coverage, which will prompt even more people to cancel their subscriptions. This is how newspapers die. Bezos surely deserves lots of blame. But so do all those people who canceled their subscriptions because that's what set off this downward spiral. And what exactly did canceling those subscriptions accomplish? Except for decimating one of the world's great news outlets and forcing the layoffs of many of the best journalists in the country, many of whom will surely now leave the profession?

Oh geez. What sent the Post on its spiral? It was its owner and management. Not the people who canceled subscriptions. Stop being an apologist for Bezos and company. You’re claiming the Post’s demise on the customers is absurd. And it’s exactly what Bezos and team want.

I feel for the many incredible journalists at the Post and would gladly pay for a subscription to their Substack or next publication. But not WaPo.

So mealy mouthed. You think it was, like, vibes that sent the Post on its spiral? No. It's money -- the money that stopped coming in when hundreds of thousands of people decided to cancel their subscriptions because (of all things) they were mad about the editorial page not endorsing Kamala. Before 2024, no one even gave a shit whom the Post endorsed in any presidential election. Those people had the right to cancel, of course, but they should also acknowledge that their protest didn't accomplish anything and created the dire situation the Post now finds itself in.

Sorry but it’s not my responsibility to pay for something I no longer read because it is no longer useful. The NYT seems to have been able to figure out how to drive subscriptions and clicks. Same with the WSJ.

If the public boycotted the Times or the Journal because of something stupid their owners did, like they did with the Post, the exact same thing would happen to the Times and Journal. They'd have to impose massive cuts in coverage, and then people would cancel because they didnt like the coverage anymore, and we'd be speculating about whether the Times and Journal would go under.

Sure, but so far that hasn’t happened. Bezos and Lewis have done this to the Post, not the former subscribers.

The subscription numbers dropped when Bezos bought the Post and never recovered. You can't deny that.

Actually, we can deny that because it’s not true. When Bezos initially bought the post, subscriptions rose.

And for a while, the Post was doing fairly well in a tough market for legacy publications. He has systematically hacked away at the Post and made what are presumably deliberate and ideological choices to neutralize the Post to satisfy Trump.

He also hired managers who are complete incompetents. The result is he has precipitously lost subscribers for the Post.

The print circulation has continuously declined. It's below 100,000 since last June.

Digital subscriptions peaked at 3 million in 2013-2020 with Bezos' purchase, but has experienced a slow, but steady decline since then. I ascribe that digital surge to the big move of media to the Internet as heralded by the Bezos purchase, but the Post never regained the popularity it once experienced before the Internet killed print media. The Post clung to the old ways instead of embracing change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love these people who claim to care about politics and public policy but won't subscribe to the Post. Apparently you don't care that much!

DP. I subscribe to the WSJ, Post and NYTimes. (and Bloomberg!). If the Post doesn’t have decent local news then there is truly no reason for me to keep my subscription. The only thing I will miss is Capitol Weather Gang but I guess I will just follow Matthew Capucci’s socials.

+1 there are tons of options. Democracy won’t die in darkness. I’m not subscribing because it used to be good.

There's only a handful of news organizations in the entire world that can match the Post.

Could not can. It is crap now.

The Post just won two Pulitzer prizes, after winning three the year before that, and three more in the year before that. You people are ridiculous.

All these idiots are mad about the editorial pages, which THEY NEVER EVEN READ IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Canceling your subscription and, in the process, destroying a newspaper because you're mad about the editorial page that most people completely ignored is just bizarre. Talk about the tail wagging the dog.

It's not about the editorial pages, you are missing the point. It's about the loss of local news, sports, and all the other things they have slashed today. I have the NYT and WSJ for national and international news. The Post was the local paper, with good coverage of the business of Washington (the government). Now it is going to just be the business of Washington. I don't need an expensive subscription for that when I can get that elsewhere.

We don't know all the people who were fired today but how many of those Pulitzer winners are still Post reporters? I think you are thinking the Post is the same as what it was a year ago or two years ago. It isn't even close.

More than 300,000 people canceled their subscriptions to the Post after Bezos killed the paper's endorsement of Kamala back in 2024. Those cancellations are what forced the paper to cut coverage of sports and local news and all the rest. Now you're canceling your subscription because it's not covering sports and local news and all the rest. If you and other people do that, that will force even more cuts in their coverage, which will prompt even more people to cancel their subscriptions. This is how newspapers die. Bezos surely deserves lots of blame. But so do all those people who canceled their subscriptions because that's what set off this downward spiral. And what exactly did canceling those subscriptions accomplish? Except for decimating one of the world's great news outlets and forcing the layoffs of many of the best journalists in the country, many of whom will surely now leave the profession?

Oh geez. What sent the Post on its spiral? It was its owner and management. Not the people who canceled subscriptions. Stop being an apologist for Bezos and company. You’re claiming the Post’s demise on the customers is absurd. And it’s exactly what Bezos and team want.

I feel for the many incredible journalists at the Post and would gladly pay for a subscription to their Substack or next publication. But not WaPo.

So mealy mouthed. You think it was, like, vibes that sent the Post on its spiral? No. It's money -- the money that stopped coming in when hundreds of thousands of people decided to cancel their subscriptions because (of all things) they were mad about the editorial page not endorsing Kamala. Before 2024, no one even gave a shit whom the Post endorsed in any presidential election. Those people had the right to cancel, of course, but they should also acknowledge that their protest didn't accomplish anything and created the dire situation the Post now finds itself in.

Sorry but it’s not my responsibility to pay for something I no longer read because it is no longer useful. The NYT seems to have been able to figure out how to drive subscriptions and clicks. Same with the WSJ.

If the public boycotted the Times or the Journal because of something stupid their owners did, like they did with the Post, the exact same thing would happen to the Times and Journal. They'd have to impose massive cuts in coverage, and then people would cancel because they didnt like the coverage anymore, and we'd be speculating about whether the Times and Journal would go under.

Sure, but so far that hasn’t happened. Bezos and Lewis have done this to the Post, not the former subscribers.

The subscription numbers dropped when Bezos bought the Post and never recovered. You can't deny that.

Actually, we can deny that because it’s not true. When Bezos initially bought the post, subscriptions rose.

And for a while, the Post was doing fairly well in a tough market for legacy publications. He has systematically hacked away at the Post and made what are presumably deliberate and ideological choices to neutralize the Post to satisfy Trump.

He also hired managers who are complete incompetents. The result is he has precipitously lost subscribers for the Post.