Shared publicly  - 
 
A populist (but poor) future for the Post?


There’s great appeal in the Washington Post’s ombudsman's argument that what the country needs the paper to be is “the one source of high-quality, probing Washington news that readers in this region and across the country can look to for holding their government accountable. This publication must be for all Americans…It must be hard-hitting, scrappy and questioning — skeptical of all political figures and parties and beholden to no one. It has to be the rock-’em-sock-’em organization that is passionate about the news. It needs to be less bloodless and take more risks when chasing the story and the truth.”

Yet while he accurately notes that the Washington news orgs that are growing—quickly—are those like Bloomberg, Politico et al that cover “the beats that corporate clients are willing to pay for: health care, energy and the environment, and technology” he doesn't quite connect the dots.

How, then, does he propose for the Post to fund its populist mission? Ah, that’s the question.
1
Melanie Sill's profile photo
 
I read this and remember thinking it odd for the Post to be described as populist. I'm sure that captures some internal aspirations.
Add a comment...