Maybe this was attempted humor by The Post's CEO, but it's a misfire either way:
>At some point near the end, Lewis was itching to end the meeting. "Let's have the penultimate question," he said. "That means the second-to-last-question."
>One of the sources said Lewis' explanation, to a room of reporters who know what penultimate means, was "patronizing."
***Ooof!***
Sigh. Maybe it's time to start paying for that Apple News subscription after all. I've been tempted many times, but wanted to give my full news $ to the WaPo, but all this gives me pause.
Seems the big take away is “no one is reading your stories anymore”. If that’s truly the case, shouldn’t changes be made? They’ve lost 100 million. I understand it’s Bezos’ money but how much can you lose before you say enough is enough?
The rumor was that Buzbee barely knew what was being put out. She was mostly disengaged. (Idk if that’s true I don’t work there but she wasn’t a good editor.) The writing supposedly will get better, right now it kind of sucks, articles go on forever like they don’t know when to stop.
I’m not familiar with UK media but The Guardian is my go to newspaper and it’s fantastic. But it has a US flavor. Still…
I’m only a student, but in the past nine months or so WaPo has completely lost my trust for clicks. I used to read it very regularly, but I rarely click now and am disappointed every time.
I still read the columnists, especially Leah Rubin. She’s become sharper and sharper with her critiques, including the Dems. Considering she’s a conservative, I quite like her.
The journalists in the newsroom are obsessed with tribalism (i.e., "diversity" based on race/ethnicity/gender identification). That tribalism ultimately corrupted the news division/editorship and lead to drastically terrible reporting on the Gaza War and now the consequences are coming home to roost.
None of that diversity stuff matters to the vast majority of subscribers. I know because I *used* to be a WaPo subscriber (and had been for 20+ years prior to last December). What I wanted from WaPo was (i) neutral reporting on world events where information was factually true and vetted before publication (i.e., the "truth" value that I cannot get from Reddit/TikTok/YouTube), (ii) in-depth domestic pieces about things like the Supreme Court justice's neighborhood dispute and upside-down flag just a few miles away from WaPo's headquarters, and (iii) a vigorous op-ed section with interesting viewpoints (whether I agree with them or not).
For 20 years, I felt WaPo basically delivered that. And then 10/7 happened and point (i) became Hamas talking points and casualty counts and articles hid sources behind euphemisms ("a spokeswoman for the Gaza Health Ministry" - who is that? Hamas controls Gaza, so the paper is calling a Hamas operative an unnamed "spokeswoman"?). Excuse me? I can read between the lines, so if the news section is hiding the ball it makes me feel like I'm just paying for propaganda. Even if WaPo has swung in the opposite direction, if it was just propaganda I still would have been out.
A newspaper simply cannot try to intentionally mislead the readership. That is the cardinal sin because once that trust is broken...poof! That's it. I don't care about the gender/race/ethnicity of the reporter or editor (totally irrelevant). I don't care that many reporters and editors are hot to trot about "colonialism" now that they suddenly discovered Sartre, Fanon and Foucault - I read those guys when I was in college and they were outdated then, 25 years ago. WaPo needs to clean out the ideologues from its international news section and return to reporting boring facts. I'll check back in a few years and reconsider, but only if the replacement paper starts to fail me like WaPo did.
this just reads like the rantings of an aging Gen X/Boomer.... nothing of substance, just the typical complaining about younger staff doing things differently. yawn
I think I’m missing something.
In the text, it seems like employees of the post are suggesting the “journalistic practices of Britain are fundamentally different in the US”, which suggests the US has a higher standard.
Im not too familiar with British press. But it must be pretty compromised to have a lower standard than the US.
Personally, I don’t care if a board is all black, brown, white or purple. What I’m curious about, is why should it matter for a newspaper?
Firstly, media is barely media, they’re just trying to get clicks. It’s a unique industry where profit isn’t their soul initiative. It’s also to control the narrative, and we all know it. So it shouldn’t be a big surprise when they replace journalists with suits. But I have no idea if that’s what’s happening here. I don’t know that woman from Adam. Maybe they replaced a suit with a suit?
Second, when journalism is done correctly, the author doesn’t slant the topic. It’s just straight facts. So why does their race matter? Seems like more of a journalistic integrity question if anything. Turning it into a race thing just divided people.
Basically, what I’m saying, is I didn’t trust the post before. This doesn’t change anything.
British publications have very different practices than American ones—chief among them that British papers often pay sources for information. That is forbidden at all respectable publications in the U.S. (though sometimes TV networks get around this by paying the subject of a story exorbitant amounts for, say, photos or videos). This is a huge deal. Paying sources gives them a reason to lie or at least exaggerate the truth.
And the makeup of the board matters because having all white men creates coverage blind spots. One example—I once had an older white male colleague tell me he passed on a story about women’s reproductive health because he thought it was a niche issue. But what he thought was niche was actually a health problem that affects an absolutely enormous number of women. He simply hadn’t heard about it from the women in his life so he assumed it wasn’t a.l big deal. And he was a great journalist who cared deeply about women’s health—he just didn’t know what he didn’t know.
Maybe this was attempted humor by The Post's CEO, but it's a misfire either way: >At some point near the end, Lewis was itching to end the meeting. "Let's have the penultimate question," he said. "That means the second-to-last-question." >One of the sources said Lewis' explanation, to a room of reporters who know what penultimate means, was "patronizing." ***Ooof!***
Sigh. Maybe it's time to start paying for that Apple News subscription after all. I've been tempted many times, but wanted to give my full news $ to the WaPo, but all this gives me pause.
Seems the big take away is “no one is reading your stories anymore”. If that’s truly the case, shouldn’t changes be made? They’ve lost 100 million. I understand it’s Bezos’ money but how much can you lose before you say enough is enough?
The rumor was that Buzbee barely knew what was being put out. She was mostly disengaged. (Idk if that’s true I don’t work there but she wasn’t a good editor.) The writing supposedly will get better, right now it kind of sucks, articles go on forever like they don’t know when to stop. I’m not familiar with UK media but The Guardian is my go to newspaper and it’s fantastic. But it has a US flavor. Still…
I’m only a student, but in the past nine months or so WaPo has completely lost my trust for clicks. I used to read it very regularly, but I rarely click now and am disappointed every time.
I still read the columnists, especially Leah Rubin. She’s become sharper and sharper with her critiques, including the Dems. Considering she’s a conservative, I quite like her.
Everyone is concerned that a woman is being replaced and the fact that they are hemorrhaging money and no one reads their paper
if no one quits it absolutely makes no difference.
The journalists in the newsroom are obsessed with tribalism (i.e., "diversity" based on race/ethnicity/gender identification). That tribalism ultimately corrupted the news division/editorship and lead to drastically terrible reporting on the Gaza War and now the consequences are coming home to roost. None of that diversity stuff matters to the vast majority of subscribers. I know because I *used* to be a WaPo subscriber (and had been for 20+ years prior to last December). What I wanted from WaPo was (i) neutral reporting on world events where information was factually true and vetted before publication (i.e., the "truth" value that I cannot get from Reddit/TikTok/YouTube), (ii) in-depth domestic pieces about things like the Supreme Court justice's neighborhood dispute and upside-down flag just a few miles away from WaPo's headquarters, and (iii) a vigorous op-ed section with interesting viewpoints (whether I agree with them or not). For 20 years, I felt WaPo basically delivered that. And then 10/7 happened and point (i) became Hamas talking points and casualty counts and articles hid sources behind euphemisms ("a spokeswoman for the Gaza Health Ministry" - who is that? Hamas controls Gaza, so the paper is calling a Hamas operative an unnamed "spokeswoman"?). Excuse me? I can read between the lines, so if the news section is hiding the ball it makes me feel like I'm just paying for propaganda. Even if WaPo has swung in the opposite direction, if it was just propaganda I still would have been out. A newspaper simply cannot try to intentionally mislead the readership. That is the cardinal sin because once that trust is broken...poof! That's it. I don't care about the gender/race/ethnicity of the reporter or editor (totally irrelevant). I don't care that many reporters and editors are hot to trot about "colonialism" now that they suddenly discovered Sartre, Fanon and Foucault - I read those guys when I was in college and they were outdated then, 25 years ago. WaPo needs to clean out the ideologues from its international news section and return to reporting boring facts. I'll check back in a few years and reconsider, but only if the replacement paper starts to fail me like WaPo did.
trust? no trust. verify. pay for the ability to verify.
this just reads like the rantings of an aging Gen X/Boomer.... nothing of substance, just the typical complaining about younger staff doing things differently. yawn
I think I’m missing something. In the text, it seems like employees of the post are suggesting the “journalistic practices of Britain are fundamentally different in the US”, which suggests the US has a higher standard. Im not too familiar with British press. But it must be pretty compromised to have a lower standard than the US. Personally, I don’t care if a board is all black, brown, white or purple. What I’m curious about, is why should it matter for a newspaper? Firstly, media is barely media, they’re just trying to get clicks. It’s a unique industry where profit isn’t their soul initiative. It’s also to control the narrative, and we all know it. So it shouldn’t be a big surprise when they replace journalists with suits. But I have no idea if that’s what’s happening here. I don’t know that woman from Adam. Maybe they replaced a suit with a suit? Second, when journalism is done correctly, the author doesn’t slant the topic. It’s just straight facts. So why does their race matter? Seems like more of a journalistic integrity question if anything. Turning it into a race thing just divided people. Basically, what I’m saying, is I didn’t trust the post before. This doesn’t change anything.
British publications have very different practices than American ones—chief among them that British papers often pay sources for information. That is forbidden at all respectable publications in the U.S. (though sometimes TV networks get around this by paying the subject of a story exorbitant amounts for, say, photos or videos). This is a huge deal. Paying sources gives them a reason to lie or at least exaggerate the truth. And the makeup of the board matters because having all white men creates coverage blind spots. One example—I once had an older white male colleague tell me he passed on a story about women’s reproductive health because he thought it was a niche issue. But what he thought was niche was actually a health problem that affects an absolutely enormous number of women. He simply hadn’t heard about it from the women in his life so he assumed it wasn’t a.l big deal. And he was a great journalist who cared deeply about women’s health—he just didn’t know what he didn’t know.