Jun 22, 2023·edited Jun 22, 2023Liked by Richard J. Tofel
Aren’t you really making primarily a content argument here, at least in the cases of the Post and the Globe? Investment, yes, but also clarity, vision, editorial strategy and listening to what (content) readers want is what works. Not just money. As you say, with or without the Bezos money, the Post doesn’t seem to know who or what it “is,” or what it’s trying to be. To make the same point from the other side of the lens: we both know several excellent nonprofit newsrooms that are thriving on relatively small budgets… because, I would argue, they know what and who they are and who they are trying to reach, and they’re doing it very well. All the money in the world can’t solve a vision problem.
I think it’s both content strategy and investment level. Can’t do without the former, but, in these cases, with their reader expectations of breadth and depth, think you also need more of the latter.
Barbara Rabb is on point about The Washington Post, especially when she says it does not know who or what it is. I'm a native Washingtonian and thus grew up with the newspaper. It is particularly weak as a local newspaper, it frequently shows it doesn't pay much attention to the Washington in its name even when it writes about issues that have an impact around the corner from its office. Its website contains a lot of what I would call high-end clickbait that probably detracts from its journalism. High-impact stories seem to disappear quickly; recently I looked for an exclusive that had been the subject of cable news chatter the evening before and all I could initially find was one of those "takeaways" summaries that didn't link to the original story. The paper continues to have one of the worst search engines of any news site I've seen; a Google site search always delivers more on-point results. The print edition is a missed opportunity: While the website is understandably more nationally and globally focused, I assume there is little audience for a print edition outside the D.C. metro area—so why not make the print edition more locally focused, with at least one or two local stories on the front page in addition to a robust Metro section? The Post in its heyday used to do this. Instead, the Post has a weekly "Local Living" section that is laughable for its lack of local content. I think the Post's mandate is clear: Hard-hitting accountability and explanatory journalism with global and national impact, and serving a local readership that wants a newspaper that understands how the world's most consequential issues play out on their block as well as on the other side of the world.
Not to pile on ... but I will for just a moment. I also dislike the Post's aesthetics, at least online. I don't like their typeface or their design. It makes the experience of browsing just sort of unpleasant - magnified by the fact that I don't find much there that is compelling.
Jeff Bezos' acquisition of the Washington Post and Patrick Soon-Shiong's acquisition of the Los Angeles Times are what I call "ego purchases." A friend prominent in the news industry (whose name I won't disclose) once explained to me that the reason Mort Zuckerman bought the New York Daily News because he knew that Barack Obama then would want to meet him for dinner when he visited New York City.
Under Soon-Shiong's leadership the LA Times now has bureaus in Beijing, Beirut, Mexico City, Seoul, and Singapore, and in Atlanta and Austin -- something to brag about in Soon-Shiong's circle of wealthy powerbrokers. But in my nine years running a hyperlocal news organization in Los Angeles, I was amazed at the Los Angeles Times' lack of interest in local stories. I referred to its editors several major scandals whose coverage was outside my purview. I rarely got a response and never saw those scandals covered.
I have never turned to the Los Angeles Times for coverage of international news -- I use The New York Times and the Guardian for that. And I stopped reading it when I realized it covered little local news.
The Post seems determined to focus on opinions, trying to offer lots of views from both parties. (I'm not in DC, so I defer to residents for what they want.) But the Post has no unique coverage of the federal government beyond the opinions. Big missed opportunity...
Aren’t you really making primarily a content argument here, at least in the cases of the Post and the Globe? Investment, yes, but also clarity, vision, editorial strategy and listening to what (content) readers want is what works. Not just money. As you say, with or without the Bezos money, the Post doesn’t seem to know who or what it “is,” or what it’s trying to be. To make the same point from the other side of the lens: we both know several excellent nonprofit newsrooms that are thriving on relatively small budgets… because, I would argue, they know what and who they are and who they are trying to reach, and they’re doing it very well. All the money in the world can’t solve a vision problem.
I think it’s both content strategy and investment level. Can’t do without the former, but, in these cases, with their reader expectations of breadth and depth, think you also need more of the latter.
Could you please point out the nonprofit newsrooms you mentioned? Thanks for any help here
It's good to se a positive comment on The Boston Globe, important not just for Boston and its environs, but for New England.
Barbara Rabb is on point about The Washington Post, especially when she says it does not know who or what it is. I'm a native Washingtonian and thus grew up with the newspaper. It is particularly weak as a local newspaper, it frequently shows it doesn't pay much attention to the Washington in its name even when it writes about issues that have an impact around the corner from its office. Its website contains a lot of what I would call high-end clickbait that probably detracts from its journalism. High-impact stories seem to disappear quickly; recently I looked for an exclusive that had been the subject of cable news chatter the evening before and all I could initially find was one of those "takeaways" summaries that didn't link to the original story. The paper continues to have one of the worst search engines of any news site I've seen; a Google site search always delivers more on-point results. The print edition is a missed opportunity: While the website is understandably more nationally and globally focused, I assume there is little audience for a print edition outside the D.C. metro area—so why not make the print edition more locally focused, with at least one or two local stories on the front page in addition to a robust Metro section? The Post in its heyday used to do this. Instead, the Post has a weekly "Local Living" section that is laughable for its lack of local content. I think the Post's mandate is clear: Hard-hitting accountability and explanatory journalism with global and national impact, and serving a local readership that wants a newspaper that understands how the world's most consequential issues play out on their block as well as on the other side of the world.
Not to pile on ... but I will for just a moment. I also dislike the Post's aesthetics, at least online. I don't like their typeface or their design. It makes the experience of browsing just sort of unpleasant - magnified by the fact that I don't find much there that is compelling.
Jeff Bezos' acquisition of the Washington Post and Patrick Soon-Shiong's acquisition of the Los Angeles Times are what I call "ego purchases." A friend prominent in the news industry (whose name I won't disclose) once explained to me that the reason Mort Zuckerman bought the New York Daily News because he knew that Barack Obama then would want to meet him for dinner when he visited New York City.
Under Soon-Shiong's leadership the LA Times now has bureaus in Beijing, Beirut, Mexico City, Seoul, and Singapore, and in Atlanta and Austin -- something to brag about in Soon-Shiong's circle of wealthy powerbrokers. But in my nine years running a hyperlocal news organization in Los Angeles, I was amazed at the Los Angeles Times' lack of interest in local stories. I referred to its editors several major scandals whose coverage was outside my purview. I rarely got a response and never saw those scandals covered.
I have never turned to the Los Angeles Times for coverage of international news -- I use The New York Times and the Guardian for that. And I stopped reading it when I realized it covered little local news.
The Globe didn’t shut down Crux. It spun it off. See: https://whatworks.news/2022/02/08/getting-to-the-crux-of-the-matter-with-a-catholic-news-project-that-began-at-the-boston-globe/
My mistake, Dan. Thanks for spotting. Now corrected.
The Post seems determined to focus on opinions, trying to offer lots of views from both parties. (I'm not in DC, so I defer to residents for what they want.) But the Post has no unique coverage of the federal government beyond the opinions. Big missed opportunity...
Interesting points, as always, Dick!
Agreed with the other two commenters on the Post, and probably related to the old joke about Washington being a one-industry town.