The reason the headline is so bad, in my opinion is that it can be read as The Coast Guard toughened their stance on swastikas, if you did not know they were already prohibited. As crazy as it seems I am willing to bet some people did not know they were prohibited (maybe because of the first amendment?)
Yes, that's exactly the problem with it -- it sounds as if they're taking measures against having troops with swastikas, not that they're making it easier to do so.
What's mystifying is that it was The Post itself that first reported the plan to ease up on the no-swastikas rule -- and that the Coast Guard, right after the story ran, announced that they would do no such thing; swastikas were still totally out of the question.
NOW it turns out that they are going ahead to allow (or at least not ban) swastikas and noose tattoos after all. That was today's story. And the headline doesn't explain any of that in the least.
Gene, I do not see it "sometimes" in editorials. I see it in the overwhelming majority of editorials. When I cancelled my subscription, I said that I would not label the editorials as bullshit, because bullshit can be used as fertilizer. The Washington Post editorials have become toxic sludge.
But isn’t the focus of the story the egregious use of the phrase “potentially divisive” in the manual? When I saw that, I interpreted it to mean that nooses and swastikas wouldn’t actually be divisive if no one in the Coast Guard had a problem with them, and under Hegseth’s leadership, he will eliminate divisiveness and have everyone toe the line (or in the Coast Guard, tow the line).
The Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security (in peacetime), which means it is under the command of Kristi Noem. Not that she's any different than Hegseth. In time of war, the Coast Guard is under control of the Navy--so read Hegseth there.
Headline finagling aside, it was the WaPo article that got the CG to backtrack and the head almost certainly got the desired "click" effect which is, by and large, what online heads are now written to encourage. How quaint of Pat to still believe a head should actually reflect its article.
The image heading this post makes me cringe not for the sake of the poor eggshells, but on behalf of the barefooted human doing the treading. A damn shame that the Post doesn't see the dangers to its own integrity -- its tender soles -- in walking on eggshells.
Yesterday I got a notice that my Washington Post subscription would be going from $2.00 per month to $12.00 per month, effective December 24. I cancelled. Now the Post is offering me to renew for $29.00 per year. Should I take it?
I'd hold out for the dollar-a-month (for the first 10 years) renewal, free parking for a year at the 15th St. NW garage, six months of Amazon Prime and an autographed photo of Jeff and Lauren. However, you won't get one with the inscription, "To our favorite subscriber" since I got that.
Why would you want to put money, even 29 bucks, in Bezos' pocket, just to read that formerly excellent paper that is now about one step above the National Enquirer?
I’ve developed apps, so I don’t trust theirs. Reading it in the browser has become increasingly frustrating with all of the page reloads and background activity eating battery life. I frequently find that I have to delete website data and restart my iPad. Trying to do the crossword on the Post is horrible, I do it on the LA Times website now. I find that the only time I visit the Post now is for the recipes that I’ve bookmarked. I need to write them down before my cheap subscription expires.
It is a bad headline because of the ambiguity of whether the policy it is more or less strict. But I kinda want to give the editor who wrote it a little benefit of the doubt because they might have put the quote in to highlight the utter ridiculousness of the Coast Guard statement. But then again I have spent decades trying to gain myself to see another side of something instead of rushing to my natural extreme judginess. Maybe my first judgy impulse was right here.
What an adorable little loophole "The revision also emphasizes that Confederate flags remain banned from display, except in limited contexts or where they are part of a historical display or a minor part of a painting." Minor? As in Asia?
The WPost buries all its ledes these days. And I've seen no evidence of any copy editing. Stories can go on for over a page and I realize I have no idea what the subject is or what points have been. Not sure what I renewed recently but I do like the center fold funnies in color.
'This inherent authority — drawn as well from Article II’s command that the president “take care that the laws are faithfully executed” — includes the power to dismiss executive branch officials at will.'
I’ve always felt Nazis are potentially divisive. That’s what Susan Collins told me.
Did she seem very concerned when she told you that?
She puts on a look of concern like it's perfume.
She clutched her pearls, too.
They're OK once they learn their lesson.
My best laugh of another pretty sad day....
She writes her own punchlines.
Yeah, potentially.
The reason the headline is so bad, in my opinion is that it can be read as The Coast Guard toughened their stance on swastikas, if you did not know they were already prohibited. As crazy as it seems I am willing to bet some people did not know they were prohibited (maybe because of the first amendment?)
You are correct.
Yes, that's exactly the problem with it -- it sounds as if they're taking measures against having troops with swastikas, not that they're making it easier to do so.
What's mystifying is that it was The Post itself that first reported the plan to ease up on the no-swastikas rule -- and that the Coast Guard, right after the story ran, announced that they would do no such thing; swastikas were still totally out of the question.
NOW it turns out that they are going ahead to allow (or at least not ban) swastikas and noose tattoos after all. That was today's story. And the headline doesn't explain any of that in the least.
I've stopped reading the Editorials of the Post--I don't trust them
I quit reading the Post the day the Bezos decided that it would no longer endorse candidates.
I am with you on that. I still read the WaPo news, but utterly ignore the editorials as well.
The only element of the Editorials worth reading are the comments, with attention to the creative ways commenters get around the AI-based censorship.
Gene, I do not see it "sometimes" in editorials. I see it in the overwhelming majority of editorials. When I cancelled my subscription, I said that I would not label the editorials as bullshit, because bullshit can be used as fertilizer. The Washington Post editorials have become toxic sludge.
You pissing on the Post is worth the subscription alone.
But isn’t the focus of the story the egregious use of the phrase “potentially divisive” in the manual? When I saw that, I interpreted it to mean that nooses and swastikas wouldn’t actually be divisive if no one in the Coast Guard had a problem with them, and under Hegseth’s leadership, he will eliminate divisiveness and have everyone toe the line (or in the Coast Guard, tow the line).
The Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security (in peacetime), which means it is under the command of Kristi Noem. Not that she's any different than Hegseth. In time of war, the Coast Guard is under control of the Navy--so read Hegseth there.
I wonder how Kosplay Kristi would feel if someone hung an effigy of a dog outside her office?
She'd probably shoot it.
Gee, can sailors now join the KKK and wear hoods on board?
Headline finagling aside, it was the WaPo article that got the CG to backtrack and the head almost certainly got the desired "click" effect which is, by and large, what online heads are now written to encourage. How quaint of Pat to still believe a head should actually reflect its article.
This was on Page A1 of the print paper.
Even worse.
The image heading this post makes me cringe not for the sake of the poor eggshells, but on behalf of the barefooted human doing the treading. A damn shame that the Post doesn't see the dangers to its own integrity -- its tender soles -- in walking on eggshells.
Well, when you've sold your soul....
ISWYDT
Yesterday I got a notice that my Washington Post subscription would be going from $2.00 per month to $12.00 per month, effective December 24. I cancelled. Now the Post is offering me to renew for $29.00 per year. Should I take it?
I would say yes.
I'd hold out for the dollar-a-month (for the first 10 years) renewal, free parking for a year at the 15th St. NW garage, six months of Amazon Prime and an autographed photo of Jeff and Lauren. However, you won't get one with the inscription, "To our favorite subscriber" since I got that.
I think you should. There's still a LOT of great reporting in The Post.
Hold out for $20 a year
Why would you want to put money, even 29 bucks, in Bezos' pocket, just to read that formerly excellent paper that is now about one step above the National Enquirer?
Well, the News Department still functions, although I think it will eventually follow the Editorial Department into the gutter.
I’ve developed apps, so I don’t trust theirs. Reading it in the browser has become increasingly frustrating with all of the page reloads and background activity eating battery life. I frequently find that I have to delete website data and restart my iPad. Trying to do the crossword on the Post is horrible, I do it on the LA Times website now. I find that the only time I visit the Post now is for the recipes that I’ve bookmarked. I need to write them down before my cheap subscription expires.
My subscription lapsed about a year ago, and by then, I didn't trust a word of what I read in WaPo, even the hard news. I switched to The Guardian.
I subscribe to The Guardian.
Capital Weather Gang and the comics.
If you have a puppy.
Assuming you get the fishwrap version.....
It is a bad headline because of the ambiguity of whether the policy it is more or less strict. But I kinda want to give the editor who wrote it a little benefit of the doubt because they might have put the quote in to highlight the utter ridiculousness of the Coast Guard statement. But then again I have spent decades trying to gain myself to see another side of something instead of rushing to my natural extreme judginess. Maybe my first judgy impulse was right here.
What an adorable little loophole "The revision also emphasizes that Confederate flags remain banned from display, except in limited contexts or where they are part of a historical display or a minor part of a painting." Minor? As in Asia?
My version of the headline: Coast Guard welcomes nazis, murderers, and their admirers into their ranks.
The WPost buries all its ledes these days. And I've seen no evidence of any copy editing. Stories can go on for over a page and I realize I have no idea what the subject is or what points have been. Not sure what I renewed recently but I do like the center fold funnies in color.
See? Didn't edit and there are at least two glaring errors in my comment
I thought of Pat's expertise when I read
'This inherent authority — drawn as well from Article II’s command that the president “take care that the laws are faithfully executed” — includes the power to dismiss executive branch officials at will.'
(in https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/17/opinion/trump-presidential-power-miller-vought.html)
I saw this pusillanimous headline this morning. The Post!