[freddyc]

It's amazing how many people I know who have subscribed to the WaPo in the last 12 months. I know, I know - echo chamber - but it gives me great hope that quality news organizations have a future. If executed properly, most people are willing to pay for quality content (side note: a major pet peeve of mine is when you pay for a subscription and are then bombarded with obnoxious pop-up ads whenever you try to access said paid content online).

I've been a long-term WSJ subscriber and recently switched to the digital-only subscription due to the quality of their tablet app, but it remains a guilty pleasure of mine to buy up a selection of hard copy newspapers on a rainy weekend and lock myself away for hours.

[geodel]

Once flying from Dubai to DC I got a free copy of Sunday Financial times. It had huge number of topics. I would have never gotten all this stuff in one place sitting in front of Internet.

[freddyc]

Funnily enough, I'm also a subscriber of the FT! The app has the full newspaper ordered in the same way (Lex, The Big Read etc) and provides a pretty great experience for a digital consumer. It's not quite the same as having a hard copy in your hands, but for ease of access and portability - I can read it wherever I am in the world - it really is a fantastic product.

[douche]

> but it gives me great hope that quality news organizations have a future

I hope that high quality news organizations do have a future, but the WaPo? I'm not sure that label fits.

[tptacek]

Then subscribe to some other paper. You might like the WSJ. The point is not which paper, and let's not waste time litigating the choice.

[freddyc]

Why do you say that? Their political coverage and some of their deep-dive investigative pieces have been top drawer IMO.

[johnnyb9]

I think this article pretty much sums up how I feel about the Washington Post: https://theintercept.com/2017/01/04/washpost-is-richly-rewar...

[tanderson92]

How about these two pieces published within about a week of each other?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/23/...

You'll note that the two stories are directly contradictory. The claim made by the WaPo is stronger than Senator Sanders' and yet Senator Sanders received 4 Pinocchios for the claim.

I also like FAIR's analysis of the WaPo's opinion leanings (though it leaks over to supposed factual reporting too): http://fair.org/home/washington-post-ran-16-negative-stories...

[freddyc]

Thanks, I hadn't seen that before. I still value a lot of the work they did last year, but it's a great reminder to keep a critical eye on what I consume. Now, please don't tell me the WSJ and FT are guilty of the same offenses? I'm not sure I can handle that much disappointment in one day.

[hadfgdasf]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the WSJ is Rupert Murdoch's paper. Take a look at their editorial page.

In this case I think the WaPo fact-checker was unfair in handing out Pinocchios. Four Pinocchios should be reserved for bald-faced, baseless falsities. In this case, Bernie had a source, based directly off of research. The "fact checker" criticized the details, application, and methodology of these conclusions, and offered its own, completely speculative conclusion that the real number is lower. I'm not saying this didn't deserve a Pinocchio or two, but I do think it's a bad call. That doesn't make it worthless, but I do think it certainly undermines its credibility a bit.

[bestnameever]

The second article in fact references the prior article and makes an argument that the writer is being over optimistic.

[crdoconnor]

Lying about fake news:

https://sputniknews.com/us/201612081048298376-washington-pos...

It's lies like that that legitimize Trump in the eyes of his followers.

[cheshire137]

They have this deal where Amazon Prime subscribers get several months free. That's why I'm a subscriber to WaPo now.