The Washington Post, like many other newspapers, has fallen on hard times. The only part of the Post empire that’s making any money is the Stanley Kaplan test preparation operation, while the Post itself is bleeding millions. As a consequence, the paper has eliminated a lot of what used to be its most appealing features and has pensioned off many of its best reporters and writers. In recent months, too, the leaders of the paper have embarrassed themselves and have sullied the paper’s reputation with a series of stupid lapses of judgment and taste that never would have happened under the old Post regime. The paper is shrinking in size, in ambition, in quality, in editorial standards, in reputation — in every way that matters.
All this has been obvious to those of use who live with the Post on an everyday basis. It has come as something of a shock, though, to an otherwise-close observer of the media who has been away for a while and is now reacclimating to life Stateside. As James Fallows, just returned from a stint in China, writes:
bq. The NYT, for all its travails, is a recognizable version of the publication I’d previously known. Personality, depth, world-view, tone. The poor Washington Post is not. Laying off — that is, buying out — so many reporters who knew so much about their topics has had a more profound effect than I would have guessed. …And the resulting paper seems more obviously desperate to try anything that will draw attention in this new age. …I’ve thought of the Post as my hometown paper for years and feel as if I’ve come back to see a family member looking suddenly very ill. …If someone asked, what do you notice that’s changed, the Post would be high on the list.