Will The Washington Post Survive?

Think Progress:

Washington Post ombudsman Andy Alexander's column on Dan Froomkin ends with the observation that "With his loyal followers, he'll survive. So will The Post." I'm not certain that the Post won't survive, but like Brad DeLong I don't think it makes a ton of sense for Post employees to be that confident that the paper will survive either.

Read the whole story: Think Progress

Comments

[DrPneumann]

10:16 AM on 06/28/2009

I find it hysterically ironic that these old news rags are crumbling because of the costs to produce a newspaper when they were the ones demonizing the evil weed cannabis which, if used instead of the materials produced through massive deforestation, could have saved them millions over the years.

[henrypapillon]

09:59 AM on 06/28/2009

None of us will survive unless we all start paying alms to the GREAT PAPILLON IN THE SKY. All hail the Great Papillon! All Hail Major Teddy!Bow down and ask forgiveness. Hail Major Teddy.

[rattler99]

08:55 AM on 06/28/2009

I dropped my subscription when they went into Bambam worship and took a hard turn to the left - good riddance to this piece of krap

[Travis bdboy]

08:26 AM on 06/28/2009

Who even read the krap they print.....they's gone....bye bye

[LeLoup]

01:41 AM on 06/28/2009

The Post must not survive in its actual edition. There is a price to pay for being too political and stupid at the same time.

[metalpipe]

12:14 AM on 06/28/2009

Will this rag survive this downturn? Will I survive this downturn? Being laid off, I'd like to say I'm in good company, but it's tough.

[01202009]

12:00 AM on 06/28/2009

The Wash Post used to be a real newspaper, but now it's just another right wing blah blah. DC has two really bad newspapers. The Post and Times. When the Post keeps on writers like Krauthammer and Billy Kristol, well, what more need be said?

What I haven't seen mentioned is the fact that the Wash Post Co makes its money on its text book company so it has deep pockets.

If the NYTimes goes down the drain then we are in trouble. Murdoch has been circling it like a vulture.

[Jesusland]

01:41 AM on 06/28/2009

The WaPo is "rightwing"? I guess that puts you to the left of Mugabe.

[khiva]

08:01 AM on 06/28/2009

The WaPo is extreme right wing. You apparently don't read there in Jesusland. If I want to hear the Voice Of Cheney, I'll flush my toilet.

[rattler99]

08:58 AM on 06/28/2009

at least the Times has some fair and balanced reporters without leg tingles - Murdoch should buy the NYT and turn it back into a newspaper instead of a Bambam/Gore worship sheet

[xargaw]

11:30 PM on 06/27/2009

With the Post's coverage of the last eight years of Bush and Bob Woodwards enabling so that he could obtain access, who cares whether there is a Post or not. The few good journalists will move on and the rest are already irrelevant.

[henrypapillon]

10:41 PM on 06/27/2009

The answer=====from the Papillon Gods===only those worshipping the Great Papillon will survive===Hail to Major Teddy.Hail.

[larry278]

10:37 PM on 06/27/2009

The death of the WaPo could create a problem for Slate, affiliated with the WaPo, & Slate's "Today's Papers", a de facto arbiter of which US papers are newspapers of record. If the LAT, NYT & WaPo fold, TP will have only USA Today & WSJ as newspapers of record. Since USA Today is still called McPaper & the WSJ is owned by Mr Murdoch, a very partisan & profit oriented publisher; TP is going to have slim pickings. TP could resort to using reliable regional dailys in lieu of newspapers of record &/or designate web sites as newspapers of record. As Arnie Johnson said on "Laugh-In", very interesting.

[bayside]

09:55 PM on 06/27/2009

I remember wash post used to be a very trusted paper..They were taken over by the conservative and have gone down down down ever since..They are still going the same downhill, excluding progressive views..I will miss them...

[khiva]

10:53 PM on 06/27/2009

I agree 100% I used to subscribe, but when the paper took a screaming right turn and became a far right wing mouthpiece, I dropped my subscription. F the WaPo.

[desktop]

09:49 PM on 06/27/2009

Normally I would think Rupert Murdoch would try to buy it. If that happens you won't ever see a Watergate story again. But if there's one thing Murdoch loves more than slanting the news, it's making money. The Washington Post along with all newspapers are finished as money makers.

[PaHairO]

09:47 PM on 06/27/2009

A useless, useless rag. Except for propagandists.

Let's hope it goes down hard. It would be a deserved fate after the utter abdication of anything remotely resembling journalistic integrity.

[SamEllison]

09:36 PM on 06/27/2009

First it was Arkin, then Froomkin now me.

[JLRoberson]

08:56 PM on 06/27/2009

In all likelihood, no, it won't. And at this point it doesn';t deserve to.

Next.