upvote

points

by wellwelloctober3 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby wsatb3 hours ago|
next
[-]
> It's also the case that The Washington Post brought itself down. I grew up reading WaPo and when I moved back to DC as an adult c. 2017 I got a subscription.

This doesn't really add up given Bezos purchased it in October 2013.

> It also probably did not inspire very much good will from management/ownership when the company's employees started regularly leaking proceedings at company meetings and reporters started making a practice of using social media to criticize management during work hours.

Your thinking is completely backwards. This isn't the first case of a wealthy individual buying journalism in order to destroy it. Why do you think employee backlash happened in the first place?

reply
upvoteby wellwelloctober2 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
To be clear, my main point here is that people seem to be in total denial that The Washington Post has been in decline for a while. Of course I don't wish being fired on anyone, but I don't think that it really has much value as a journalistic periodical at this point. Perhaps it happened while Bezos was in charge, perhaps it didn't, but I don't think all the staff there and who just got laid off have been producing a great product.
reply
upvoteby ribosometronome3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
>c. 2017

4 years after the Bezos acquisition?

reply
upvoteby fluidcruft3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
It's just so odd that he chose to move back to DC some time after the Bezos acquisition! It's almost as if these are unrelated events...
reply
upvoteby ribosometronome3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Bezos didn't buy DC, he bought a newspaper. The commenter was saying that the decline in quality was potentially unrelated to the acquisition and then immediately compared pre and post acquisition quality. That seems like a strange way to make that point and like it might suggest that the acquisition perhaps was related to its decline in quality.
reply
upvoteby fluidcruft3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The commenter said they moved back to DC in 2017 and noticed the change then.

Elementary reading skills suggest this means they lived in DC for some significant period of time prior to 2017 as a WP reader, moved away from DC for some unknown period living elsewhere as a non-WP reader, moving back to DC in 2017 when they started reading WP again.

reply
upvoteby ribosometronome2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Elementary reading skills would also make it obvious that I'm not talking about their move from and back to DC. Them moving back and forth from DC is certainly irrelevant to WaPo's quality.

They noticed a decline in quality from before and after the acquisition and are using that to conclude that the acquisition didn't impact the quality of the paper. Again, that certainly seems like a strange way to make the point that the purchase didn't impact its quality.

reply
upvoteby fluidcruft2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
... because they left DC before the acquisition ... and moved back to DC after the acquisition ...
reply
upvoteby simonw3 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
I don't think I would trust a newspaper where the journalist did NOT leak proceedings of company meetings!
reply
upvoteby miltonlost3 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Oh, so its the workers who are to blame!!!! Your timeline of the paper after 2017 is when bezos acquired...
reply