Anonymous wrote:Metro section has been practically non-existent for years. They pretty much ignore Fairfax except for sensational news.
And, the obituary stories are long and about people i never heard of instead of locals.

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:

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.

The print circulation of every newspaper in America has been declining for 30 years. They're all shifting to online. And the Post was initially doing quite well under Bezos. The total number of subscriptions grew dramatically under Bezos. That all reversed though when Bezos stopped the Post from endorsing Kamala. More than 300,000 people canceled their subscriptions, which is well over 10 percent of all of their subscribers. That is what has sent the Post spiraling. When large amounts of subscribers cancel, it just kills their entire business model. You can't possibly sell enough ads to make up the revenue so you have to make big spending cuts. It was stupid for Bezos to ever get involved with the editorial page, and it was stupid for all those people to retaliate by canceling their subscriptions because now everyone is much worse off.

The decline was long before the Post wasn't allowed to endorse Harris.

Uh, no. Bezos bought the Post in 2013. By 2021, their subscriptions had tripled. That's some pretty incredible growth.

And after 2021, subscriber count dropped, losing 500,000 over the next three years before Harris was appointed to run.

It's not a coincidence that's when the first Biden administration began. Readership everywhere spiked during Trump I then fell when he left office.

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:

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.

The print circulation of every newspaper in America has been declining for 30 years. They're all shifting to online. And the Post was initially doing quite well under Bezos. The total number of subscriptions grew dramatically under Bezos. That all reversed though when Bezos stopped the Post from endorsing Kamala. More than 300,000 people canceled their subscriptions, which is well over 10 percent of all of their subscribers. That is what has sent the Post spiraling. When large amounts of subscribers cancel, it just kills their entire business model. You can't possibly sell enough ads to make up the revenue so you have to make big spending cuts. It was stupid for Bezos to ever get involved with the editorial page, and it was stupid for all those people to retaliate by canceling their subscriptions because now everyone is much worse off.

The decline was long before the Post wasn't allowed to endorse Harris.

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:

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.

The print circulation of every newspaper in America has been declining for 30 years. They're all shifting to online. And the Post was initially doing quite well under Bezos. The total number of subscriptions grew dramatically under Bezos. That all reversed though when Bezos stopped the Post from endorsing Kamala. More than 300,000 people canceled their subscriptions, which is well over 10 percent of all of their subscribers. That is what has sent the Post spiraling. When large amounts of subscribers cancel, it just kills their entire business model. You can't possibly sell enough ads to make up the revenue so you have to make big spending cuts. It was stupid for Bezos to ever get involved with the editorial page, and it was stupid for all those people to retaliate by canceling their subscriptions because now everyone is much worse off.

The decline was long before the Post wasn't allowed to endorse Harris.

Uh, no. Bezos bought the Post in 2013. By 2021, their subscriptions had tripled. That's some pretty incredible growth.

And after 2021, subscriber count dropped, losing 500,000 over the next three years before Harris was appointed to run.

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.

Actually, the Post has been terrible at writing stories about DC for 15 years. Other sources include the Washington City Paper, 51st (a lot of reporters from other outlets went there), Axios DC, City Cast Podcast (they picked up several Post reporters), Washingtonian.

Those have been my go to for a while.

This is the equivalent of going from watching an NFL football team to watching a Division III football team.

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:

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.

The print circulation of every newspaper in America has been declining for 30 years. They're all shifting to online. And the Post was initially doing quite well under Bezos. The total number of subscriptions grew dramatically under Bezos. That all reversed though when Bezos stopped the Post from endorsing Kamala. More than 300,000 people canceled their subscriptions, which is well over 10 percent of all of their subscribers. That is what has sent the Post spiraling. When large amounts of subscribers cancel, it just kills their entire business model. You can't possibly sell enough ads to make up the revenue so you have to make big spending cuts. It was stupid for Bezos to ever get involved with the editorial page, and it was stupid for all those people to retaliate by canceling their subscriptions because now everyone is much worse off.

The decline was long before the Post wasn't allowed to endorse Harris.

Uh, no. Bezos bought the Post in 2013. By 2021, their subscriptions had tripled. That's some pretty incredible growth.

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:

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.

The print circulation of every newspaper in America has been declining for 30 years. They're all shifting to online. And the Post was initially doing quite well under Bezos. The total number of subscriptions grew dramatically under Bezos. That all reversed though when Bezos stopped the Post from endorsing Kamala. More than 300,000 people canceled their subscriptions, which is well over 10 percent of all of their subscribers. That is what has sent the Post spiraling. When large amounts of subscribers cancel, it just kills their entire business model. You can't possibly sell enough ads to make up the revenue so you have to make big spending cuts. It was stupid for Bezos to ever get involved with the editorial page, and it was stupid for all those people to retaliate by canceling their subscriptions because now everyone is much worse off.

The decline was long before the Post wasn't allowed to endorse Harris.

Anonymous wrote:Sen. Bernie Sanders
@SenSanders
If Jeff Bezos could afford to spend $75 million on the Melania movie & $500 million for a yacht to sail off to his $55 million wedding to give his wife a $5 million ring, please don't tell me he needed to fire one-third of the Washington Post staff.

Democracy dies in oligarchy.

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.

Actually, the Post has been terrible at writing stories about DC for 15 years. Other sources include the Washington City Paper, 51st (a lot of reporters from other outlets went there), Axios DC, City Cast Podcast (they picked up several Post reporters), Washingtonian.

Those have been my go to for a while.

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:

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.

The print circulation of every newspaper in America has been declining for 30 years. They're all shifting to online. And the Post was initially doing quite well under Bezos. The total number of subscriptions grew dramatically under Bezos. That all reversed though when Bezos stopped the Post from endorsing Kamala. More than 300,000 people canceled their subscriptions, which is well over 10 percent of all of their subscribers. That is what has sent the Post spiraling. When large amounts of subscribers cancel, it just kills their entire business model. You can't possibly sell enough ads to make up the revenue so you have to make big spending cuts. It was stupid for Bezos to ever get involved with the editorial page, and it was stupid for all those people to retaliate by canceling their subscriptions because now everyone is much worse off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's hilarious that all these people are canceling their subscriptions to the Post to protest Bezos, but those same people would never ever cancel their subscription to Amazon. Bezos doesn't make a dime from the Post. It's been losing money for years.

Cancel your subscription to Amazon, p*ssies. Don't take it out on the reporters who are just trying to tell you what is happening in your world.

+1000

Again, you can do two things at once: Cancel your subscription to a paper increasingly devoted to propping up the desires of the administration and, at the same time, stop ordering from Amazon.

Yes, the editorial page got more conservative but the Washington Post itself, the news pages, is not -- in any way, shape or form -- trying to prop up the desires of the administration. The news section, which is the section everyone cares about and actually reads, is strictly nonpartisan.

NP. I would say the news stories still lean left. Look at the coverage of ICE/the shootings in Minneapolis, for example. No one can say with a straight face those are pro-Trump stories. And the sections cut this time really have nothing to do with politics.

The editorials are listed on the front page of their website, and I end up clicking on them. And they are noxious and weird. Apropos of nothing, they have an editorial today on Americans Have Gotten Richer. It's pure propaganda with cherry picked data to try to convince people not to believe their own reality. You want to support that? I agree it's not the whole paper, but more and more. They had an article on sparky bomber jackets for Maga ladies where they made the observation that "Maga has taken a shine to sequins, lately." Is bezos' wife running the budget meetings? Come on man.

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.

Actually, the Post has been terrible at writing stories about DC for 15 years. Other sources include the Washington City Paper, 51st (a lot of reporters from other outlets went there), Axios DC, City Cast Podcast (they picked up several Post reporters), Washingtonian.

Those have been my go to for a while.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is a really helpful roundup - thanks. Definitely agree about cobbling together lots of different sources.

I’m seeing a lot of people bring up the 51st - I think the 51st absolutely has its merits but it’s also very small and quite overtly biased (part of that is editorial judgment but it’s also just a natural side effect of a smaller, self-selecting publication).

Of course, *all* media is biased, but one of the key advantages of a huge and established paper (like WaPo, formerly) is that it can support a diverse and vetted slate of opinion writers and larger newsrooms where strong teams can check each other and work towards clear and fair reporting that gets as close to the “truth” as possible. There just won’t be a replacement for what WaPo once was…sigh. I am sad.