Katharine Weymouth and the Future of Newspapers
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-06-07/katharine-weymouth-and-future-newspapers
Her great-grandfather bought the Washington Post during the Great Depression. Her grandmother brought it to prominence during Watergate. Katharine Weymouth on the challenges she faces as publisher of the paper in the digital age.
Guests
Katharine Weymouth
publisher, The Washington Post, and CEO of Washington Post Media.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Washington Post does a story on NPR music, and Diane Rehm interviews Katherine Waymouth, the head of the paper on Monday's show? What's going on here?
Hey Post, I'll interview you if you write a 'news' piece on my music.
For Ms Weymouth
I don't know what the long term future of print "newspapers" is but I know this: I have always appreciated the Washington Post. Their commitment to "truth" was always obvious, especially "Watergate".
The investagative work and the reporting was, in my opion, done right and with appropriate restraint.
This is very different from the "scattergun" journalism we are overwhelmed with today.
My plea is keep the high standards at the Post.
By the way, your Grandmother and Ben Bradley are my heros.
does Ms. Weymouth read newspapers in hard copy form or on electronic devices such as Kindle or iPad?
Emmett
I do not like the LAYOUT of the new format in the Post.
Also, what has happen to the movie listings page ?
It is very difficult to decipher since all the print is the same with no differentiation between theatre categories.
Could they change it back to the old format- please?
A question for Katherine : does she feel that the written word is under attack from social media tools that allow un edited comments to populate the online and offline press? In this anyone can print anything age how can newspapers like the washington post stay ahead of the game ?
Dear Ms. Rehm-
The reason we've dropped our subscription to the Washington Post is because its news section primarily relies on an outdated "He said, she said" model of journalism, in which the journalist simply finds two opposing sources of quotes, without evaluating the relative credibility of those two sources. Sadly, it transforms the noble craft of journalism into stenography. And it eliminates the value I look for from my news sources.
I am _not_ looking for opinion in my news. I am looking for evaluation and insight.
Yours,
Doug Weinfield
Washington, DC
Ms. Weymoth mentioned that over 100 repoters and editors have been let go. How does this affect investigative reporting and the assurance by the editorial staff that FACTUAL reporting is occuring. Could watergate be busted today?
I adore newspapers - in particular, the Washington Post. I use the Post's website and mobile news app on my iPhone multiple times a day (as well as the Slate website), but I also subscribe to the print newspaper - as a commuter who must take the train on a daily basis, I appreciate having a physical object I can carry with me on the train and the bus to catch up on events happening in the world before the day begins. Maybe its an outdated form of romanticism, but nothing beats the feeling of turning the pages of the real thing.
I stopped getting the Washington Post 3-4 years ago because their investigative reporting went to almost 0. The Post became more a political newspaper than a public's newspaper. I get The NY Times now, but I listen daily to BBC, and other foreign news or newspapers for a more thorough reporting.
Thank you
Newsweek, which is owned by the Post, has changed so much since our favorite columnist, Anna Quinlan left, and they have dropped real people from "My Turn", when it does appear. Couple that with increasingly tabloid style headlines and a dearth of regional and national news has in my opinion, favoring blog style editorials in my opinion has eviscerated the magazine. Is that why the Post is looking for a buyer for it?
Dee
I suppose Diane had Weymouth on for old time's sake re: her grandmother. But if what Weymouth said on the show is any indication of her smarts, the Washington Post is in big trouble.
Weymouth was nothing but blandness and vagueness. Despite her inside position she had nothing insightful to say.
For example, evidently they are just tossing Newsweek out there hoping someone is stupid enough to buy and lose a lot of money. What if no such entity emerges, will they just kill it?
For example, evidently she knows nothing about her competition in Washington, just saying she couldn't talk about them. Duh?
I've been sad to see the quality of the Washington Post fall lower in recent years. Its amazing Sunday paper is now reduced to a quick Gannett-like read and is not worth buying. My compliments to Diane Rehm for asking the questions which showed the demise of the Post has much to do with the direction chosen by Ms. Weymouth, who filled the interview with vague double-talk.
The argument presented by Ms. Weymouth that what we now see in the Post is a necessity to fit with Internet-based communication is not supported by what we can see with other news organizations who made a similar transition. Case in point: The NY Times added its Web-based format without sacrificing quality. I've found it's better to I read this paper online and on Sundays for analysis of DC news, not the Post....and for political analysis, I no longer go the Post, but also read Politico -- which is staffed by former Post reporters. In terms of metro coverage, the Washington Times' local coverage is far superior to that of the Post.
Conceptually, Ms. Weymouth just doesn't seem to understand what makes a great newspaper.
I'd like to add to the chorus of negative responses to your interview with Katharine Weymouth on Monday. I couldn't believe the glibness of her (non-)answer to your listener question about the questionable hiring of a political operative like Mark Thiessen, which she seemed to think she sufficiently addressed by vaguely reciting the newspaper's commitment to representing "different voices".
The cavalier tone of her response tells me that she either 1) missed the importance of the question -- depressing in itself, and all the more amazing considering it's arguably THE most interesting and vexing problem, along with payment model, facing journalism today -- or 2) she has contempt for the question itself (even more dis-spiriting). The specter of - for lack of a better word - hackery that is so apparent in journalism today -- demonstrated for ex. by the NY Times' terrible decision to hire Bill Kristol as columnist and CNN's recent hiring of right-wing blogger Erick Erickson as a regular commentator -- suggests that mainstream journalistic institutions simply don't know what to do when faced with a right wing that nihilistically denies any separation between partisan commitment and truth and browbeats it with charges of "liberal media".
I've always had my suspicions about whether the Post was up to the enormous challenges facing it, but listening to Ms. Weymouth's almost offensively lukewarm responses here didn't give me much reason for encouragement. I'm sure the Post, like a handful of other major names, will survive, but whether we should look look to it to help usher in the path-breaking journalism of the future that we want and need, looks doubtful indeed.