Talk:The Washington Post

Wow this article looks to be highly out of date at this point. For example, it doesn't mention the current CEO is MIA. I will try to update it. Others should feel free too as well. It also looks to me to be minimizing current criticisms and the extent the Post's reputation has tanked. I think that's mostly just a product of it being out of date though. I will be mindful of that Wikipedia principle to not overemphasize recent events. But clearly right now this article is in desperate need of improvement, and I'm honestly rather busy and can only do a little Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I thought that the Post is a third-rate tabloid publication, famous for publishing Janet Cooke's fabricated stories about heroin addiction without doing any fact-checking. How much could the reputation of such a publication decline? Dimadick (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi @Ezra Fox. Thanks for your attempt to update. I really do think this article is in desperate need of going the other direction. Way too much focus on recent stuff for a subject that is over 100 years old. Were there really no controversies from 1877-1980? Why do we only have ones after that for example. So I would be really hesitant to go in the other direction.

Also, I noticed you added a section on the current CEO under controversies. That is better suited for the history section, and seems to already be there. Is there anything in what you added that isn't covered there already? If so, can you move it and integrate it above? If not, I'll go ahead and delete that section.

Happy editing! meamemg (talk) 14:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Another possibility would be to split the "Criticism and controversies" into a new article "The Washington Post controversies and criticism" and keep only a summary paragraph here. This way, the subsection on the CEO can remain in the new article assuming it's notable. Alenoach (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Maybe. I'd rather see the important stuff moved to a relevant section and the rest just cut, per WP:NOCRIT meamemg (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I guess I view the Washington Post as really dying slowly. Or maybe even less slowly now. And the lead doesn't mention that at all, and describes it as a newspaper of record when that's now highly in dispute. I also think some of the things in the history section maybe should be briefly talked about as a controversy if they did lead to significant criticism, loss of subscribers, and negative reporting from other papers. Maybe I'm wrong about that though. And reading it again I do understand why that would broadly be in the history section. Anyway, I did write a couple new things, but you're right most of it is old. I'll delete most of it and move a bit over. And thanks for taking my edit in good faith, I think it's usually better to try to work with someone and teach them instead of just reversing changes, and I appreciate you did that Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

alright I tried to move and integrate it. Also, reportedly Executive Editor Matt Murray instituted a policy discouraging the Post from reporting on itself. This was after his relationship with Lewis deteriorated due to Murray allowing several such articles before. Murray's reversal has led to criticism from people like Erik Wemple, The Post's media columnist. Is something like this warranted of being mentioned in the article? If so, where/how? Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks for responding here and editing the article. I appreciate that you see the Post as dying. If that is really the case, I think there would be coverage in some reliable source that we could cite to for it no longer being considered a paper of record.

The challenge with the current structure of the article (which I know you aren't responsible for) is it makes it easy to add the negative. "This bad thing happened so I'll add a sub-section, paragraph and two sources about it under "controversies"." is easy. But something like the Pulitzer that they received with the NYT covering the Russian election interference seems at least as notable, has at least as much media coverage, yet is no where to be found in here. The Post has had significant impact in holding US politicians to account and uncovering and covering stories that have had critical impact on the world. Yet there is no mention of any of the Post's reporting since Watergate. I guess that's on me to write/source/add, when I have time.

I think one good test on a lot of this stuff: has anyone talked about it more than a week or two after it occurred? If not, was it really significant enough to be worth talking about? There will be news stories that establish that X happened, sure. But if X is important, someone should be writing about the fact that it was important and explaining why. If so, let's cite to that. If they aren't, why should we?

WP:10YEARTEST is also a good set of guidance to keep in mind.

meamemg (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

those are all good points. I do think it makes sense to add the things you mention. The notability thing is especially important, right now the notability guidelines are kinda unclear, I advocated for making them more clear in the talk page, peeps seemed to agree, and then nothing happened and eventually the topic was closed🤷. But in essence ur correct that while notability once established is usually permanent, in order to be established it must be more than just briefly covered at the time. I'll look into more sources when I have the time. To be clear while I think The Washington Post is dying, that's my opinion and I certainly don't think such a claim should be put in Wikipedia's own voice Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Particularly the final two sentences:

"Andrew Koppelman, in an opinion piece for The Hill , praised the Post for revealing its cowardice. In his book On Tyranny , Snyder wrote that "Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. ... [I]ndividuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked", and he, too, condemned the decision."

The sentence about Koppelman might be able to be fixed with the addition of the word "sarcastically" or "facetiously" or "ironically".

The sentence about Snyder strikes me as WP:SYNTH and needs to be completely re-written or removed. YarrowFlower (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I went ahead and made the necessary changes myself. I have to say, the paragraph is much improved with these changes. YarrowFlower (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

All the sources that justify calling the Post a paper of record are at least nearly a decade old. Coincidentally, The paper’s prestige and reputation has taken a massive decline this past decade. I think if that claim is to remain it should at least have an academic source from the past two or three years. Thoughts? 2600:1700:7AA4:1430:90B3:1C3B:282B:9B4D (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I would think that if a paper as well known as the post was no longer considered a paper of record for the country, there would be reliable sources discussing the change. Do you know of any? See also the discussion in the "out of date" section up above. meamemg (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

There are some relatively recent sources that call it a newspaper of record, but they often also acknowledge that the journal is currently facing difficulties: [1] [2] [3]. Should we add one of these? Should we remove the ^{[better source needed ]} or the sentence? Alenoach (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

As far as I'm aware a paper of record is just any newspaper that publishes legal notices, which the Washington Post does. I agree the sources show the papers facing difficulties, but it still has one of the largest audiences in the U.S and is considered trustworthy. The controversy has been limited to the op-ed pages. GavinTG (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I removed the "better source needed" tag following your comment. Alenoach (talk) 01:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The term has multiple meanings. See Newspaper of record. Unless we clarify that we mean public record (and virtually all newspapers in the US meet that definition, so why would we?), I don't think we can consider this resolved on that basis. meamemg (talk) 15:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Although GavinTG's reply mentions the legal definition, I think the focus here is on the term "newspaper of record" by reputation, not on the legal meaning (public record). This is what the sources are about. Alenoach (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Asking how it will be handled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:3EF0:8DD0:1894:D14A:DFF7:29CC (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Fifteen firings in their Opinion department, not all editorial staff. Since opinion-style coverage is seldom relied on for articles, I don't expect the change to impact WaPo's status as a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

As of February 2026, more than 300 journalists have now been let go. "Democracy Dies in Darkness", indeed. ~2026-32351-0 (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

@Theleekycauldron proposed a split of the subsection "Jeff Bezos era (since 2013)" to a new article "The Washington Post under Jeff Bezos". I started this discussion to debate whether to make the split. Alenoach (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm skeptical. Seems like doing so will just codify WP:RECENTISM concerns. meamemg (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

The article claims KidsPost was eliminated in 2023. I'm a Sunday-only subscriber, and I just received a KidsPost insert 2 weeks ago. GRrouillier (talk) 11:46, 29 March 2026 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks. Looks like it was restored last summer. meamemg (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2026 (UTC) [reply ]