There are very few stories I am competent to write, because I don’t know anything about anything, but when I pretend to be competent, I mostly I fake it.
I said "yes" but I was thinking of the OLD Post. I moved out of the area several years ago so I have not witnessed the decline of the print version. I subscribe because I think it's the most credible source (Gene's point).
Here's why I dropped my online subscription: the coprolite George Will, unhinged shitweasel Hugh Hewitt, fascist Marc Thiessen, and a good number more shitheads that I didn't want to feel like I was supporting. Once Gene got canceled, any inertia keeping me on the rolls was overcome. Can't say that I regret the decision.
Like it's possible to avoid them and their drivel. Also, I think you are being quite generous with the word "thinking." Hewitt, for example, has apparently one thought, to wit "Nuh-uhhh!"
Precisely. The WaPo (and to a lesser extent The NY Times) have decided that “fair and balanced” means employing hard-right editorial page writers who refused to think for themselves, choosing to toe the party (i.e, Trump) line. (An exception at NYT is Bret Stephens, who I almost never agree with, but who presents generally thoughtful libertarian-leaning articles that give me insight to another way of thinking.) Why would any self-respecting news service hire Hugh Hewitt and Marc Thiessen? Gawd! (At least with George Will once a year you get a good baseball story.) I happen to live in an area of Sacramento County where I can get daily (except Saturday) delivery of The NYT, and willingly pay the about $4.50 a day that subscribers are charged. But I don’t know if I would paper-subscribe to WaPo anymore. The about $100/year I am still willing to shell out, but each Hewitt or Thiessen or Will or etc. I read makes me rethink renewal in December.
I answered yes because reading the dead tree edition every day, as I have for more than four decades, is so ingrained. But paying $5 a day for a product that continues to shrink (the Metro section is embarrassingly thin, rarely exceeding six pages) and seems fated to degenerate into a lower-budget version of the Wall Street Journal could well eventually break me of that habit, I'm sorry to say.
People who only read the online version often gush about a certain Metro reporter's prose about the weather and have no idea that it is just filler for what used to be an important part of the paper for local readers.
Here’s another point. I was more than disturbed to see when people like Bob Woodward keep news out of the newspaper so that it can help him sell his books. That should be a firing offense.
I've subscribed to the Post in print and/or electronic format for 45 years. When my subscription comes due for renewal in December, I will refuse to renew unless I get the cheapo-cheapo rate that new subscribers get. A subscription to the Guardian is an attractive alternative to a renewal of my subscription to the Post.
I said yes because I support print media. Reading a paper copy is quite different from reading online. And I hope the WP rids itself of the current management crew.
I answered "no" because I'm now paying about $2 per day which is higher than it was before the removal of WaPo Magazine and, of course, The Style Invitational. I have been paying more and getting less. As I am occasionally called to the WaPo surveys by Qualtrics, I have been able to offer a very negative opinion of some of the latest consolidation ideas that have been floated. In addition to already inflated costs, I've also lost the offsetting value of the Wednesday food section and Sunday inserts coupons. Before Super Double Coupons died in the pandemic at Harris-Teeter, 20 of those maxed out bad boys could save me $40 on a grocery order back when that would have covered half the cost of an 8-week, 7-day fishwrap edition and maybe 85% of the order. Super Double Coupons was about every 6 weeks, so sometimes I might even cover the full cost of the subscription. Those were the days.
The reason I wouldn't pay for a paper WaPo is for the same reason I stopped subscribing to magazines. It would sit there, haunting me, becoming more and more obsolete, because I just wouldn't feel that I have the time it takes to read it it thoroughly enough to justify my purchase. Whereas I can grab bits and pieces of online writing, or stop halfway through an article that does not interest me as much as I had hoped, and not feel that I am wasting resources.
I keep the annual Post subscription, but I’m seriously thinking about canceling it. I likes me some Jennifer Rubin opinion pieces, but there’s principle here.
I am amused by how Rubin has converted completely from a conservative to a fairly middle-of-the-road liberal (like me). Having to actually justify her opinions on the basis of bettering people's lives has compelled her to abandon conservative politics.
You can see some conservative tendencies in her line of thinking, but she’s completely fed up with what the “conservative” movement has become and wants no part of it. If she weren’t so busy dealing with her political house being on fire, she’d probably write more things that I didn’t agree with, but it would all be worth understanding and taking very seriously.
I answered "no" because I think you meant pay $5 every day. Lately, I'm beginning to wonder if even the Sunday edition is worth $5. But, damn, I DO like reading the funnies in print.
Yes. as long as Gary Trudeau, EJ, Dana, Alexandra, Michael Dirda, Ron Charles, and Philip Kennicott are writing for them, it will be hard to give up. I assume Carolyn Hax is syndicated and available elsewhere.
A few reasons why I wouldn't pay the $5, but the main one is: convenience. I read the WaPo throughout the day. When I have a free moment. While things are loading, while I am eating lunch, alone, at my desk, at home. My point is, this is impossible with a paper newspaper. Reading a paper newspaper requires time. It is An Event. You cannot scroll through the headlines and sections read an article, then get back to whatever you were doing at work. With three screens of real estate at my home office (and one is a gigantic 42"), I can do that.
Good answer. But charmingly naive Hildy. You forget we're now in the post-literacy age of alternative "credibility." You don't even need Kellyanne's "alternative facts." You just need to carefully curate your stories and spin the "fact facts" enough times, et voila! Alternative credibility. A misleading head here, a "fact fact" misinterpreted or strategically left out there. All in the name of "fairness" or "equivalence:" nothing wrong with "fairness," right? Among the highest traditions of journalism, right (sarcasm supplied)? Only a matter of time before Bezos tires of losing money he could better spend on a bigger, $600MM yacht (after all even a Russian oligarch can have a $500MM yacht) and finally sells the WaPo to Murdoch to properly end this Shakespearean tragedy. Next up, the WaPo coloring edition. Literally color the news anyway you like. Special discount on the 152-count Crayola box for a two year subscription.
My wife and I dropped the Post altogether about 1.5 years ago. The reason was the Post’s cutting back on so many of the features we enjoyed. When they killed the Style Invitational and the Sunday Post Magazine, that was it. We now subscribe to the online edition of the New York Times. No, it doesn’t have such features either, but we’re spiting the Post for taking them away from us.
I would pay $5 for a copy of the OLD Post, with the Magazine, etc. Not this one.
I said "yes" but I was thinking of the OLD Post. I moved out of the area several years ago so I have not witnessed the decline of the print version. I subscribe because I think it's the most credible source (Gene's point).
My thoughts similar to Kathleen's and Bjorn's. I just like to have a paper paper in front of me with my coffee in the morning.
Agree completely.
Here's why I dropped my online subscription: the coprolite George Will, unhinged shitweasel Hugh Hewitt, fascist Marc Thiessen, and a good number more shitheads that I didn't want to feel like I was supporting. Once Gene got canceled, any inertia keeping me on the rolls was overcome. Can't say that I regret the decision.
Don't you want to know what the 'other side' is thinking and why?
Like it's possible to avoid them and their drivel. Also, I think you are being quite generous with the word "thinking." Hewitt, for example, has apparently one thought, to wit "Nuh-uhhh!"
Mikey, "coprolite" may be the best characterization of George Will that I have ever read. Thank you for making my day.
Coprolite is my new favorite nickname for George Will.
Precisely. The WaPo (and to a lesser extent The NY Times) have decided that “fair and balanced” means employing hard-right editorial page writers who refused to think for themselves, choosing to toe the party (i.e, Trump) line. (An exception at NYT is Bret Stephens, who I almost never agree with, but who presents generally thoughtful libertarian-leaning articles that give me insight to another way of thinking.) Why would any self-respecting news service hire Hugh Hewitt and Marc Thiessen? Gawd! (At least with George Will once a year you get a good baseball story.) I happen to live in an area of Sacramento County where I can get daily (except Saturday) delivery of The NYT, and willingly pay the about $4.50 a day that subscribers are charged. But I don’t know if I would paper-subscribe to WaPo anymore. The about $100/year I am still willing to shell out, but each Hewitt or Thiessen or Will or etc. I read makes me rethink renewal in December.
I would pay $5 for the aptonym that cannot be typed.
Unless it endangers children or mentions the “c” word or the “r” word.
I answered yes because reading the dead tree edition every day, as I have for more than four decades, is so ingrained. But paying $5 a day for a product that continues to shrink (the Metro section is embarrassingly thin, rarely exceeding six pages) and seems fated to degenerate into a lower-budget version of the Wall Street Journal could well eventually break me of that habit, I'm sorry to say.
People who only read the online version often gush about a certain Metro reporter's prose about the weather and have no idea that it is just filler for what used to be an important part of the paper for local readers.
Those musings -- which I admit to occasionally reading -- have changed from filler for column-inches to filler for pixels.
Here’s another point. I was more than disturbed to see when people like Bob Woodward keep news out of the newspaper so that it can help him sell his books. That should be a firing offense.
Well said, Gene; you have, again, proved your mettle.
I've subscribed to the Post in print and/or electronic format for 45 years. When my subscription comes due for renewal in December, I will refuse to renew unless I get the cheapo-cheapo rate that new subscribers get. A subscription to the Guardian is an attractive alternative to a renewal of my subscription to the Post.
I said yes because I support print media. Reading a paper copy is quite different from reading online. And I hope the WP rids itself of the current management crew.
I answered "no" because I'm now paying about $2 per day which is higher than it was before the removal of WaPo Magazine and, of course, The Style Invitational. I have been paying more and getting less. As I am occasionally called to the WaPo surveys by Qualtrics, I have been able to offer a very negative opinion of some of the latest consolidation ideas that have been floated. In addition to already inflated costs, I've also lost the offsetting value of the Wednesday food section and Sunday inserts coupons. Before Super Double Coupons died in the pandemic at Harris-Teeter, 20 of those maxed out bad boys could save me $40 on a grocery order back when that would have covered half the cost of an 8-week, 7-day fishwrap edition and maybe 85% of the order. Super Double Coupons was about every 6 weeks, so sometimes I might even cover the full cost of the subscription. Those were the days.
RIP Sunday Book World, also.
The reason I wouldn't pay for a paper WaPo is for the same reason I stopped subscribing to magazines. It would sit there, haunting me, becoming more and more obsolete, because I just wouldn't feel that I have the time it takes to read it it thoroughly enough to justify my purchase. Whereas I can grab bits and pieces of online writing, or stop halfway through an article that does not interest me as much as I had hoped, and not feel that I am wasting resources.
Like the New Yorker https://youtu.be/yL8Y3CCESqk?si=VDhTjv1oVn4lgxiK
That's why I don't subscribe. It would be agony.
I keep the annual Post subscription, but I’m seriously thinking about canceling it. I likes me some Jennifer Rubin opinion pieces, but there’s principle here.
I am amused by how Rubin has converted completely from a conservative to a fairly middle-of-the-road liberal (like me). Having to actually justify her opinions on the basis of bettering people's lives has compelled her to abandon conservative politics.
You can see some conservative tendencies in her line of thinking, but she’s completely fed up with what the “conservative” movement has become and wants no part of it. If she weren’t so busy dealing with her political house being on fire, she’d probably write more things that I didn’t agree with, but it would all be worth understanding and taking very seriously.
Please stop calling them 'conservatives'. They aren't, any longer.
Thank you! They're more like radical anarchists.
Cultists.
I answered "no" because I think you meant pay $5 every day. Lately, I'm beginning to wonder if even the Sunday edition is worth $5. But, damn, I DO like reading the funnies in print.
Yes. as long as Gary Trudeau, EJ, Dana, Alexandra, Michael Dirda, Ron Charles, and Philip Kennicott are writing for them, it will be hard to give up. I assume Carolyn Hax is syndicated and available elsewhere.
Too much paper to dispose of. And as slow as I am, it does stack up.
I support print media. The WP is going through bad times, but I hope will right itself.
A few reasons why I wouldn't pay the $5, but the main one is: convenience. I read the WaPo throughout the day. When I have a free moment. While things are loading, while I am eating lunch, alone, at my desk, at home. My point is, this is impossible with a paper newspaper. Reading a paper newspaper requires time. It is An Event. You cannot scroll through the headlines and sections read an article, then get back to whatever you were doing at work. With three screens of real estate at my home office (and one is a gigantic 42"), I can do that.
Good answer. But charmingly naive Hildy. You forget we're now in the post-literacy age of alternative "credibility." You don't even need Kellyanne's "alternative facts." You just need to carefully curate your stories and spin the "fact facts" enough times, et voila! Alternative credibility. A misleading head here, a "fact fact" misinterpreted or strategically left out there. All in the name of "fairness" or "equivalence:" nothing wrong with "fairness," right? Among the highest traditions of journalism, right (sarcasm supplied)? Only a matter of time before Bezos tires of losing money he could better spend on a bigger, $600MM yacht (after all even a Russian oligarch can have a $500MM yacht) and finally sells the WaPo to Murdoch to properly end this Shakespearean tragedy. Next up, the WaPo coloring edition. Literally color the news anyway you like. Special discount on the 152-count Crayola box for a two year subscription.
Of course, all 152 crayons will be yellow....
My wife and I dropped the Post altogether about 1.5 years ago. The reason was the Post’s cutting back on so many of the features we enjoyed. When they killed the Style Invitational and the Sunday Post Magazine, that was it. We now subscribe to the online edition of the New York Times. No, it doesn’t have such features either, but we’re spiting the Post for taking them away from us.
At least it still has a Book Review section (even if a mere shadow its former self).