If money is the problem then the WAPO readership itself, estimated at 2.5 mln, and typically decent earners, could easily put up the annual costs. 2.5 mln x $ 40 et voila. While wealthy donors like the Rockefeller found. or Soros' Open Society have spent tens of B the past decades on their funky dreams (mostly internationally though).
The previously worker-oriented Guardian has become a vehicle for British middle- and upper class pipedreams, fantasies and, especially, fears. They fundamentally oppose nuclear energy. Here they are suggesting, along wth scientists, that we won't understand contemporary languages (anymore) in the future (discussing storing nuclear waste facilities and longevity):
'...what sign should you put on the door? As one expert says in Into Eternity, the message is simple: “This is not an important place; it is a place of danger. Stay away from the site. Do not disturb the site.”
But how to communicate with people so far in the future? Put up a sign in a language they don’t understand and they are sure to open it just to see what’s inside. Ancient Egyptians on the pyramid planning committee probably grappled with the same issues. One of the Finns suggests using an image of Munch’s The Scream; another suggests a series of monoliths with pictographs and an underground library explaining the tunnel; another wonders if it is better not to tell anyone Onkalo is there at all.
When a team pondered the same issue in the US in the 1990s, they came up with proposals for environments that communicated threat and hostility. They imagined landscapes of giant, spiky, black thorns or menacing, jagged earthworks, or vast concrete blocks creating narrow streets that lead nowhere.'
You wonder how on earth earthlings today have been able to 'get' the 'this is a minefield' sign (a skull + 'Danger Minefield').
Could it be that ordinary people are (a lot) smarter than middle- and upper class progressives seem to be able to understand?
>> If money is the problem then the WAPO readership itself, estimated at 2.5 mln, and typically decent earners, could easily put up the annual costs. 2.5 mln x $ 40 et voila.
Good point. Not sure, though, that the readership was collected at the $40 price. There were a lot of discounts to gather those 2.5 million. All in vain, at the end of the day.
Yes, it's very cheap. I subscrbed to easily open old articles from the 90s. First year perhaps 20 euros, thereafter 60 i beleve. My point is: almost every WAPO reader can pay that (extra) if they want/care so much.
Is it not the staff (and allies) rather than the readership that is complaining here? And they are too few to save it at $4000 a month a piece. The opinion of the marketplace of subscribers is clear enough: the product doesn't merit the cost. The cry is "Save us from the customers, boss!"
There are two functions the Washington Post can or could perform that new media can't. First, they can investigate an issue in depth and try, in good faith, to get to the bottom of it. Second, they can get sources to return their phone calls. Even the best Substack writers will struggle to do that. There is so much low-quality false information out there that I am willing to pay for a media outlet that does those things. Why couldn't that be a sustainable business model? At least some percentage of the population wants and needs accurate information (or at least information that they know went through vetting)--if only because it helps them make better decisions.
True, deep investigative reporting is still a strength of good journalism. There are caveats, though. First, “in good faith” no longer applies in postjournalism, it is expected to be fervent and right "faith." Second, the Viral Editor of the internet is capable of far better investigation, it just has issues with packaging.
Maybe because somebody (like George Soros) would buy it and fund an agenda mouthpiece that hauls in Pulitzers (or MRC Bulldog awards) like firewood in the winter?
Or maybe because somebody (like but probably not Elon Musk) could buy it, fire nearly everybody, hire just enough people to run it profitably, link it to X/Truth Social/a new social media site, and start the "WaPo" files. Bezos may not want a "WaPo files."
Or maybe because Bezos does not know who would buy it and what they would do with it.
Maybe the WaPo went dark a while back and Bezos can't figure out how to dispose of the zombie corpse.
If money is the problem then the WAPO readership itself, estimated at 2.5 mln, and typically decent earners, could easily put up the annual costs. 2.5 mln x $ 40 et voila. While wealthy donors like the Rockefeller found. or Soros' Open Society have spent tens of B the past decades on their funky dreams (mostly internationally though).
The previously worker-oriented Guardian has become a vehicle for British middle- and upper class pipedreams, fantasies and, especially, fears. They fundamentally oppose nuclear energy. Here they are suggesting, along wth scientists, that we won't understand contemporary languages (anymore) in the future (discussing storing nuclear waste facilities and longevity):
'...what sign should you put on the door? As one expert says in Into Eternity, the message is simple: “This is not an important place; it is a place of danger. Stay away from the site. Do not disturb the site.”
But how to communicate with people so far in the future? Put up a sign in a language they don’t understand and they are sure to open it just to see what’s inside. Ancient Egyptians on the pyramid planning committee probably grappled with the same issues. One of the Finns suggests using an image of Munch’s The Scream; another suggests a series of monoliths with pictographs and an underground library explaining the tunnel; another wonders if it is better not to tell anyone Onkalo is there at all.
When a team pondered the same issue in the US in the 1990s, they came up with proposals for environments that communicated threat and hostility. They imagined landscapes of giant, spiky, black thorns or menacing, jagged earthworks, or vast concrete blocks creating narrow streets that lead nowhere.'
You wonder how on earth earthlings today have been able to 'get' the 'this is a minefield' sign (a skull + 'Danger Minefield').
Could it be that ordinary people are (a lot) smarter than middle- and upper class progressives seem to be able to understand?
>> If money is the problem then the WAPO readership itself, estimated at 2.5 mln, and typically decent earners, could easily put up the annual costs. 2.5 mln x $ 40 et voila.
Good point. Not sure, though, that the readership was collected at the $40 price. There were a lot of discounts to gather those 2.5 million. All in vain, at the end of the day.
Yes, it's very cheap. I subscrbed to easily open old articles from the 90s. First year perhaps 20 euros, thereafter 60 i beleve. My point is: almost every WAPO reader can pay that (extra) if they want/care so much.
Is it not the staff (and allies) rather than the readership that is complaining here? And they are too few to save it at $4000 a month a piece. The opinion of the marketplace of subscribers is clear enough: the product doesn't merit the cost. The cry is "Save us from the customers, boss!"
There are two functions the Washington Post can or could perform that new media can't. First, they can investigate an issue in depth and try, in good faith, to get to the bottom of it. Second, they can get sources to return their phone calls. Even the best Substack writers will struggle to do that. There is so much low-quality false information out there that I am willing to pay for a media outlet that does those things. Why couldn't that be a sustainable business model? At least some percentage of the population wants and needs accurate information (or at least information that they know went through vetting)--if only because it helps them make better decisions.
True, deep investigative reporting is still a strength of good journalism. There are caveats, though. First, “in good faith” no longer applies in postjournalism, it is expected to be fervent and right "faith." Second, the Viral Editor of the internet is capable of far better investigation, it just has issues with packaging.
"Why is he (Bezos) not selling (the WaPo)?"
Maybe because somebody (like George Soros) would buy it and fund an agenda mouthpiece that hauls in Pulitzers (or MRC Bulldog awards) like firewood in the winter?
Or maybe because somebody (like but probably not Elon Musk) could buy it, fire nearly everybody, hire just enough people to run it profitably, link it to X/Truth Social/a new social media site, and start the "WaPo" files. Bezos may not want a "WaPo files."
Or maybe because Bezos does not know who would buy it and what they would do with it.
Maybe the WaPo went dark a while back and Bezos can't figure out how to dispose of the zombie corpse.
Interesting!