The sad decline of the We're in shock...this would seem to be a fairly big cut. It's also disconcerting in light of the phenomenal papers we've produced this week...you cannot continue to cut your way to profitability alone, or offer readers less - and not just in quantity of the report, but its quality and sophistication in all sections - and expect the public to pay more. Yet we seem to be heading toward a model like Huffpo or Patch that relies on interns, freelancers, free content from citizen bloggers, and aggregation at the expense of original journalism created by experienced journalists. And that's a sad path for a place that has long enjoyed a reputation for excellence.As much as I bash the Post for its phony false equivalencies, its sloppy/shoddy/shallow reporting an increasing amount of the time, its corporate and conservative biases, I agree: less coverage of the shenanigans by radical Republicans in Richmond, of corruption at the local and state levels in Virginia, of the latest lunacy by McDonnell/Kookinelli/etc., can't possibly be a good thing for the citizens of the Commonwealth. To the contrary, if you believe - as I strongly do - that a well-informed citizenry is absolutely essential to the healthy functioning of a democracy, then it's hard to see how cutting back on information to said citizenry could possibly help matters.P.S. I see that the Post Magazine's slated for cuts. Honestly, given how lame that thing is in comparison to a serious newspaper like the New York Times, why not just ax it completely? Of course, then we'd have to live without Date Lab, which would be a major bummer (not!), but somehow I think we'd all survive it. ;) |
Pages
▼