3 ms·
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
by wellwelloctober 8mo ago
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.
- wsatb 8mo agoThe problem is your comment is missing really important information. You said you returned in 2017, but only mentioned that it was good in 2005. This leaves a 12 year period where it could have declined. You didn't say it was good in 2005 and you already started to see the decline before you left. You have no more evidence that it declined before the acquisition than after it. It reads as some weird defense of Bezos and then you doubled down by saying management wasn't happy with employee backlash. Anyways, I agree that the decline did start before the acquisition, like it started for all newspapers. The Internet killed the newspaper. Bezos was supposed to save it.