When I gave up on The Times a few years ago, I reinvested those freed-up funds into some proper journalism - the Economist and the Washington Post. Quentin Letts had been the trigger for me, but it was probably inevitable - newspaper of record, indeed - but I did think that I was probably getting the better of the deal.
And, despite all of the gloom, I still value my subscriptions. At least, I did until Jeff Bezos decided to place his mark on the Washington Post. Now, regardless of what your preferences in terms of coverage, what most thinking people want is something which reports events and comments upon them as it sees fit. I don’t have to agree with the views expressed, and if they’re well articulated and reflect the facts, I’m content to consider them with a relatively open mind. The important thing is that the reporting and the commentary are distinct from one another.
My disappointment with the Washington Post led me to cancel my annual subscription during the autumn. The immediate response was to offer me a $50 discount on a renewal - a not shabby 42% or thereabouts. I wasn’t tempted, although I wasn’t particularly attracted by the obvious replacement, the New York Times.
And so, on Christmas Eve, my subscription ran out. But a further offer was forthcoming, to renew for a derisory $20 for the first year, and €70 per year thereafter. Now, that’s a lot of money, and $20 is good value for the puzzles alone. And so, I bit.
That does suggest that my principles are a little “fuzzier” than I might like to admit, but it also suggest that the Washington Post either:
- is losing significant numbers of readers, or;
- is willing to lose money to retain its reach, or;
- both
This does not fill one with optimism.
Nonetheless, they’ve persuaded me to stay for at least another year, which reminds me, I’ve got today’s word puzzles to do…
No comments:
Post a Comment