Whether the Washington Post has an independent ombudsman or not is not a particularly sexy topic of discussion, especially considering what a bad joke that paper has become. The truth is, however, that Fred Hiatt just doesn’t want the accountability. It’s clear that he has no intention of upholding the historic standards of the Post, and he doesn’t need to be reminded on a regular basis just how awful he is at his job. Just like the Republicans finally gave up on caring whether or not the American Bar Association thought that their judicial nominees were well-qualified, Fred Hiatt no longer cares if his paper resembles the Moonie Times more than the Post of yesteryear.
He can’t possibly give one damn what his customers think or he wouldn’t employ the hacks he employs.
I used to work on Capital Hill, admittedly a while ago, and even then I thought the Post was terrible. (I no longer live anywhere near DC.) OK political coverage, but then look where it’s located – you’d have to try hard to fail in that regard when you are already in DC. The sports, metro, and business coverage never rose above mediocre.
There were two things I liked about the Post:
“He can’t possibly give one damn what his customers think or he wouldn’t employ the hacks he employs.”
Oh, I’m sure he does. But I understand that something 80% of newspaper revenue comes from advertisers, and what they sell to their customers who are advertisers is therefore significantly more important than what they sell to their customers who are only readers.
I can see why Hiatt would hesitate. He would probably need to have at least one full time ombudsman just to handle Richard Cohen’s fuckups, not to mention Jennifer Rubin. Slippery slope and all that.
How long until Bezos cans Hiatt?
Fred Hiatt no longer cares if his paper resembles the Moonie Times more than the Post of yesteryear.
The sad thing is, this isn’t much of an exaggeration. The WaPo is such a toxic neocon rag at this point that there is nothing left to save.
Remind me again, when was it exactly that any news paper’s customers were the public?
I must have been too drunk on that day to notice.
um their business model has always been the interests of the advertiser or the owner’s interests (power) ego etc.
The public has always been the means to an end …. it’s called Capitalism.
It is sheer spin/marketing that makes anyone believe otherwise.
The partisan “journalist/columnist” (sic) is simply employed to pander to the emotions (entertainer) of the a demographic(s) to have an audience to sell as marketing targets to advertisers.
Would you believe Tom Cruise opinion in an add? same deal.
All you have to do to prove my point look at the versions of the “Guardian”. Each version serves different demographics.
Like I continually say a news papers is a source (not always a good one) for anything. If you want reliable information then you have to work for it. For that you need to research and research some more.
As an expat I find it sad how deliberately and excessively naval gazing the US Media is.
It simply operates as a cheer squad for the continuation of the power concentration of the status
quo. They, like all propaganda don’t want the American public to compare or question their view point.
Like Dr Samuel Johnson wisely said “patriotism is the refuge of a scoundrel” By that he meant that if the only way to objectively justify something is patriotism …doubt the claimants motives”.
e.g. if supporting Israel’s excesses can only be justified by their patriotism and the patriotism of the US then look closer.
Addison and Steele? Benjamin Franklin?
Peter Zenger? Woodward and Bernstein during Watergate? (Not now, of course). The NYT and the Pentagon Papers story?
If newspapers didn’t care about reader subscriptions back in the day, they would have distributed the papers for nothing. I think revenue was always seen as a mixture of street purchases, readership subscriptions and advertiser income.
You’re right about too late. I stopped reading that rag in 2004.