Can’t Stop, Won’t Stop

~ Clarissa

The Washington Post CEO told the writers at the newspaper that nobody wants to read what they write. In response, an angry staffer immediately revealed why WashPo is losing relevance and will continue to do so:

“We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around,” Lewis said. “We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”

Another staffer accused Lewis of choosing two of his “buddies” to run the Post.

“The most cynical interpretation sort of feels like you chose two of your buddies to come in and help run The Post,” the staffer said. “And we now have four White men running three newsrooms.”

https://www.foxnews.com/media/wapo-boss-sounds-alarm-over-dwindling-audience-heated-staff-meeting-people-reading-your-stuff

These people are literally writing themselves out of jobs, yet they can’t stop. It’s fascinating to watch.

Unknown's avatar

Published by Clarissa

26 thoughts on “Can’t Stop, Won’t Stop”

    1. Why the snarky – and totally unwarranted comment? This blog used to be snark-free until recently. I just hope it will soon return to that tradition.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

        1. But when I did the exact same thing about Shaye Moss’ testimony, I got a lecture about how Politico, etc. are all propaganda outlets.

          Like

          Reply

            1. I’m not arguing with you about this specific story. I’m just impersonating you with my response.

              Like

              Reply

              1. Hardly. The following are not equivalent situations:

                -) Something is reported by some news sources that generally agree with each other and tend to report similar things.

                -) Something is reported by many news sources, even ones that do not usually agree with each other.

                It is perfectly sensible and rational to give more credibility to the latter. (Although, of course, one may be wrong. A disclaimer that shouldn’t be necessary.)

                Like

              5. Eh, it helps to have a context. Sometimes when my period is like 1-2 days away, I’m just cranky and wanna pick a fight with somebody. That’s not rational and there’s no guiding principle involved.

                But sometimes there’s a bigger goal: reaching an understanding, trying to figure out what the truth is, that sort of thing… but being human we get bogged down in petty grievances anyway. If there’s a bigger goal, it helps everyone, to understand what that goal is, so we can steer clear of snags in the river.

                On the other hand, if the goal is something one cannot admit to, such as… eh, my life sucks and my parents didn’t love me, but I’m not allowed to say that, and I’m angry because that feels better than despair, betrayal, or fear… so let’s find the nearest available outlets to divert that into… then it’s *all* snags. You can’t stay on point because it’s all diversion and deflection and the real issue can’t be expressed.

                Not making accusations there, I don’t know, just looking back at my own angry, misspent youth and the morass of blind emotional confusion that was my 20s. If I were doing angry trolling on someone else’s blog, that’d be the reason 😉 Middle age is the best thing ever.

                Unfortunately, that emotional dislocation is not uncommon, and it’s fairly easy to weaponize if you’re an unsavory political actor. Hey, all you unhappy kids! Here! Here’s something to be angry about! Protest! Mayhem! All the pent-up rage left over from your mom not understanding you, and your dad leaving and getting remarried and having a whole new family that he likes better! Don’t think about that! Just be mad about Israel attacking Palestine! It is literally *just* like when your parent grounded you for a month after they found out you were vaping THC. Injustice!

                Liked by 1 person

              6. This is totally why young people are so easy to mobilize against “society”, capitalism, global warming, etc. It’s far easier to convince yourself that there’s some big injustice happening somewhere than do an honest analysis of one’s own unhealthy family dynamics. Especially when people aren’t occupied with anything else. That’s why young people with jobs and bills to pay aren’t flocking to these dumb protests. Only the bored rich kids are.

                Like

              7. Yeah, when I was college-aged, the things it was OK to be angry about were… the war in Iraq, the mistreatment of women in Muslim-dominated cultures, smoking bans (for and against), the drug war, and– what else? Can’t quite remember.

                Those causes *were* attractive to me. But I’m not a joiner so I didn’t get involved in the activism side, and for that I’m grateful. Every time I even *approached* any of the more organized political-action type things going on… I found the people repellant. Because of my social deficits, I had a keen radar for people dangerous *to me*. People who are always looking for an external cause for their internal discomfort are instinctively alarming, even though I have at times *been* such a person. If they perceive you as weak and low status, you’re a target. Might not happen today, but if you hang around them long enough, their inexhaustible need to assign blame for their internal chaos WILL land on you. Best to just stay off their radar entirely, and definitely don’t get involved in any group, formal or informal, that they are in charge of.

                Like

  3. In SA, it’s the bored kids who dominate on Twitter, but it’s the people with jobs who actually turn up on election day. Of course, many of those jobs are working for the government.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

  5. I’m the Politico-link posting anon who also engaged in the useful and mature discussion above.

    I attempted to engage in a good-faith discussion with the author. I didn’t say anything about her personally, merely pointed out that it’s targeted harassment, not mob vandalism, that’s the danger with some MAGAs, by referencing a well-known court case and posting a Politico link.

    Our accomplished middle-aged author must have derived some joy from putting me down as following propaganda instead of engaging with the core of my argument. She implied I was influenced by “threats” related by a tabloid. 

    As I posted this was a court case, she said “I don’t follow these propaganda mills.” – implying I was. When I said I got my link by googling the topic, she responded with “These news outlets engage in Soviet-level propaganda. But at least in the USSR we didn’t believe the propaganda and only made fun of it.”

    When I posted a link to the court case, she didn’t care to continue the discussion.

    What emotional needs is our author fulfilling by attempting to ritually humiliate people engaging in a good-faith discussion? It seems like she is working through her anger and annoyance with the extreme left-wingers in academia by insulting her commenters as though they are them.

    Like

    Reply

        1. I meant ‘Have’, of course. Terrible that one can’t edit comments here.

          Also, I’m not the original anon above, though I share his dismay at the blogger’s seemingly compulsive attempts at ritually humiliating commenters that point out the fallacy of her positions.

          Like

          Reply

          1. I am once again asking you politely to go away. You are not wanted. Good bye. Please have some self-respect and don’t inflict yourself where you are not wanted.

            Like

            Reply

  6. This was inevitable.

    WaPo was going to have to reveal sordid details about funding that include how it’s had funding backstops that kept its primary mission going.

    That wasn’t to present the news, but instead to carry on like a “Weekend at Bernie’s” skin suit demanding gravitas while operating as a paid propaganda organisation.

    Rather than reveal how “getting comped” went all the way to the funding, which supported the kinds of writing “people didn’t want to read”, the new management made it a problem for the writers.

    What it really means is that the new management is too gutless to push solutions to the content and audience problems, now that they appear to matter, and while WaPo circles the drain, they’ll continue to blame the writers.

    There are still paid propagandists there of the old regime to deal with, but as the new management lacks ideas and instead resorts to threats and intimidation, they will not correct course fast enough or effectively enough to matter.

    Work with the staff you have, fire the few who are working against that, or if the problems are truly too big because you’ve had the organisation subverted and compromised, lean into firing lots of people if that’s the way to stop the bleeding.

    If what’s left is not enough to continue to operate as a “going concern”, have the sense to close shop and to save as much of the profit as possible.

    WaPo management was disgusting before, but the new crop that blames it on the writers without also correcting the core problems, including their own dysfunctional management styles?

    If WaPo ownership has a clue, these chuckleheads won’t last long.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. The writers didn’t say “you forced us to write this crap”, though. They said “you are bad because you are white”, showing that nobody forced them to parrot this lunacy. It was clearly freely chosen and gladly embraced.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. And this could be the first round of negotiations …

        1) Beat on the writers as a group;
        2) See who complains loudest;
        3) Fire them in a public spectacle;
        4) Anyone else? Oh, good, let’s talk about the new standards and goals.

        So maybe this is the new management’s negotiating style.

        Like

        Reply

Leave a comment