Thanks Gene for your column. We cancelled our Post subscription -- after 36 years! I will consider re-subscribing if and when there is a change in ownership.
I've been reading the Post for 55 years (the first 10 of those courtesy of my parent's subscription, when the Comics and Sports Section captured all of my attention). Sad to let it go now but since the Gene Pool is now home to my favorite Post columns -- both ethically and amusemently -- I am happy to plow some of my cancellation savings into subscribing to the Washington Pist, where democracy lives in dorkiness.
If I wrote a Letter to the Editor about my "Personal Freedom" to call President Musk and his puppy, Donald, worthless pieces of sh*t, what are the chances it would be published?
And this is why I can’t trust anything coming from the Post any more. Yes, a lot of great people are working there, doing valuable work. But with anything that gets actually published, I will always wonder if I’m going to see the journalistic equivalent of being told what happens when you meet a stranger in the Alps.
Dale has it right. For broadcast/cable TV, a rather colorful phrase repeated by John Goodman got overdubbed with “meet a stranger in the Alps”. It made not one iota of sense and bowdlerized the scene for anybody not familiar with the original. (Although if you ARE familiar, it adds an extra layer of hilarity.)
I'll take a stab that the reference is to the scene from "The Big Lebowski." On the other hand Sam could have made it up, being an occasionally celebrated Loser in these here parts.
What does "personal liberties and free markets" mean? It appears right-wing, of course, but it could mean anything. Can a columnist write about women's personal liberty to control their bodies? What about the personal liberty that universal health coverage would provide by freeing people from the worry of having to cope financially with major medical problems? How about the personal liberty that free government day care would give parents to pursue their careers? The answer to all these questions is that "personal liberties and free markets" means whatever Bezos wants it to mean on a case-by-case basis.
I wrote a letter to the editor yesterday -- probably one of thousands they received. None of those have appeared yet either.
Here is, roughly, what I wrote:
I am a huge supporter of free markets and personal liberties, So I am looking forward to seeing these values represented daily in the Washington Post editorial pages.
I look forward to seeing OpEds that staunchly oppose any restrictions on the rights of workers to organize. After all, labor unions are a product of the free market operating in the absence of regulation.
I look forward to seeing OpEds that oppose placing any limits on corporate liability. After all, liability lawsuits are a product of the free market operating in the absence of regulation.
I look forward to seeing OpEds promoting an end to subsidies for industries such as oil and gas. After all, such subsidies interfere with free market economics.
As for personal liberties, I look forward to seeing OpEds that oppose any government action that limits voting rights, abortion access, or the rights of our LGBTQ+ citizens.
So, I assume under the "Besos Rationale," Fox Entertainment should start telling the truth since its usual bullshit is widely available online. Yeah, that's the ticket.
From Politico: the "Besosification" of the WaPo opinion section
Fact is "L'affaire Besos" should come as no surprise. The big bucks buyers of legacy media, and newspapers in particular, like Bezos and Soon-Shiong of the LAT, buy them to amplify their political voices, to gain some reflected legitimacy, out of hubris and the delusion that building a completely different successful business automatically gives them the chops to run a journalistic enterprise, with its required patience and large cash infusions --- or some combination thereof. Few, if any, buy them for either altruistic reasons or to make more bucks. The business model was leaking oil even back in the day, and is now running on fumes, where it has not already ground to a halt. And now that Bezos has forcefully and very publicly inserted himself into essentially the day-to-day running of the paper, he can't easily (or at least plausibly) lay the blame on staff for an unkind word or two that may occasionally find its way into the paper. What must be even more unnerving for the staff is exactly what the definition of "unkind" is under the circumstances. The situation would appear to be something like the infamous Justice Potter Stewart statement “I know it when I see it" about hard-core porn. Guess Bezos will just tell them when he sees it.
I read the Post article about the situation (not in my Headlines email but evidently one of the "For You" popups or linked in a sidebar) but didn't have the time (or the heart) to read the comments, though I did note that the AI summary said that "There is a strong sentiment of disappointment and betrayal, with numerous subscribers indicating their intention to cancel their subscriptions, viewing the change as a departure from the paper's historical commitment to journalistic integrity and diverse opinions."
In reference to the story the Post did publish on the Bezos email, its way down near the bottom of the front page on the web. Not exactly easy to find. I don’t know where it is in the print edition.
Thanks Gene for your column. We cancelled our Post subscription -- after 36 years! I will consider re-subscribing if and when there is a change in ownership.
I've been reading the Post for 55 years (the first 10 of those courtesy of my parent's subscription, when the Comics and Sports Section captured all of my attention). Sad to let it go now but since the Gene Pool is now home to my favorite Post columns -- both ethically and amusemently -- I am happy to plow some of my cancellation savings into subscribing to the Washington Pist, where democracy lives in dorkiness.
If I wrote a Letter to the Editor about my "Personal Freedom" to call President Musk and his puppy, Donald, worthless pieces of sh*t, what are the chances it would be published?
None ...
RIP the Post that we knew and loved.
Anyone know Mackenzie Scott? Please beg her to found a new Washington-based paper to rival the one ruined by her despicable, weirdo ex-husband!🙏
And this is why I can’t trust anything coming from the Post any more. Yes, a lot of great people are working there, doing valuable work. But with anything that gets actually published, I will always wonder if I’m going to see the journalistic equivalent of being told what happens when you meet a stranger in the Alps.
Okay, I am going ot need this allegory/metaphor explained to me. WHAT happens when you meet a stranger in the Alps?
Dale has it right. For broadcast/cable TV, a rather colorful phrase repeated by John Goodman got overdubbed with “meet a stranger in the Alps”. It made not one iota of sense and bowdlerized the scene for anybody not familiar with the original. (Although if you ARE familiar, it adds an extra layer of hilarity.)
I'll take a stab that the reference is to the scene from "The Big Lebowski." On the other hand Sam could have made it up, being an occasionally celebrated Loser in these here parts.
"The Big Lebowski" has lots of scenes. Which one do you mean?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCcKBcZzGdA
What does "personal liberties and free markets" mean? It appears right-wing, of course, but it could mean anything. Can a columnist write about women's personal liberty to control their bodies? What about the personal liberty that universal health coverage would provide by freeing people from the worry of having to cope financially with major medical problems? How about the personal liberty that free government day care would give parents to pursue their careers? The answer to all these questions is that "personal liberties and free markets" means whatever Bezos wants it to mean on a case-by-case basis.
In The Guardian today, suggestions to download their app are labeled "Don’t let a billionaire’s algorithm control what you read. "
I saw that as well. I've only made a small donation to them so far but am going to subscribe. I think their news coverage is great.
I wrote a letter to the editor yesterday -- probably one of thousands they received. None of those have appeared yet either.
Here is, roughly, what I wrote:
I am a huge supporter of free markets and personal liberties, So I am looking forward to seeing these values represented daily in the Washington Post editorial pages.
I look forward to seeing OpEds that staunchly oppose any restrictions on the rights of workers to organize. After all, labor unions are a product of the free market operating in the absence of regulation.
I look forward to seeing OpEds that oppose placing any limits on corporate liability. After all, liability lawsuits are a product of the free market operating in the absence of regulation.
I look forward to seeing OpEds promoting an end to subsidies for industries such as oil and gas. After all, such subsidies interfere with free market economics.
As for personal liberties, I look forward to seeing OpEds that oppose any government action that limits voting rights, abortion access, or the rights of our LGBTQ+ citizens.
Of course, to do otherwise would be hypocritical.
And it carried no byline.
So, I assume under the "Besos Rationale," Fox Entertainment should start telling the truth since its usual bullshit is widely available online. Yeah, that's the ticket.
From Politico: the "Besosification" of the WaPo opinion section
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/02/26/jeff-bezos-washington-post-opinion-00206330
Fact is "L'affaire Besos" should come as no surprise. The big bucks buyers of legacy media, and newspapers in particular, like Bezos and Soon-Shiong of the LAT, buy them to amplify their political voices, to gain some reflected legitimacy, out of hubris and the delusion that building a completely different successful business automatically gives them the chops to run a journalistic enterprise, with its required patience and large cash infusions --- or some combination thereof. Few, if any, buy them for either altruistic reasons or to make more bucks. The business model was leaking oil even back in the day, and is now running on fumes, where it has not already ground to a halt. And now that Bezos has forcefully and very publicly inserted himself into essentially the day-to-day running of the paper, he can't easily (or at least plausibly) lay the blame on staff for an unkind word or two that may occasionally find its way into the paper. What must be even more unnerving for the staff is exactly what the definition of "unkind" is under the circumstances. The situation would appear to be something like the infamous Justice Potter Stewart statement “I know it when I see it" about hard-core porn. Guess Bezos will just tell them when he sees it.
I read the Post article about the situation (not in my Headlines email but evidently one of the "For You" popups or linked in a sidebar) but didn't have the time (or the heart) to read the comments, though I did note that the AI summary said that "There is a strong sentiment of disappointment and betrayal, with numerous subscribers indicating their intention to cancel their subscriptions, viewing the change as a departure from the paper's historical commitment to journalistic integrity and diverse opinions."
I'm amazed they left the comments section open for the "article," actually.
I felt the same.
The WaPo is now officially Dog Vomit!! My personal freedom is to use it to wipe my ass.
The only use now for the Washington Post is if you have a puppy.
In reference to the story the Post did publish on the Bezos email, its way down near the bottom of the front page on the web. Not exactly easy to find. I don’t know where it is in the print edition.
Down on the bottom of the page.
26K comments on Xitter, so far.
Where is Woodward in all this?
Dear Jeff,
Do the best practices of free market capitalism include bribery, extortion, and murder contracts?
Asking for a friend.