What a close look can tell us about an editor's view of his publishers
Interesting, especially as we are so short on really great papers. Gotta value every one we've got!
Do you think the Post's push to be a national paper made the Times up its game? Or did the Post fall short on the news side, making the business side's issues moot? Should the Post have purchased Wirecutter or Wordle?
I'll be interested to see how your "best newspaper book" view holds up after reading Adam Nagourney's new one on the New York Times.
Grimaldi's comment about the ever expanding editing staff hints at the issue I hear most often from other Post alums/staff: the anonymous "reader engagement team" that packages the product online.
For the sake of argument on a highly subjective assessment: Who/what would you say is the dominant news organization in Washington?
It is easy, in hindsight, to sit back and criticize the WP and Marty Baron. But what would the country have done without the sound reporting done during the Trump years by the WP? Similarly, would the WP even have existed during those years without Bezos’ injection of resources? If the WP business is failing today, let’s look at the current quality of its editorship. This mayters. And--as other commentators have mentioned--
Dick, as for readership profile, I suspect it's the same at the NYT. How much of this is either paper's fault, and how much of it is Trumpian-type conservatives simply being differently siloed, and to take the military version of siloing, being "hardened" in their other siloes? (I'm not a subscriber to either one, myself, but, I speak as a leftist, or maybe a left-liberal, not a traditional American liberal. I read both as they pop up on Twitter, Google News, etc., but not more than that, and on foreign policy even more than domestic, it's as much to see what they get wrong as anything.)