Who reads the Washington Times?

Here is Washington DC we have two major daily papers, the Washington Post and the Washington Times. Now I must admit that I am a daily Post reader, though not 100% by my own choice. I’d love to read the NY Times instead, but as only the Post delivery man is allowed in my building, I’m stuck. I draw the line at a 7am trek down 7 flights for my paper.

So while I am reading the Post along with 700,000 other Washingtonians, I sometimes stop to wonder: Who is reading the Times? Apperently there are roughly 100,000 people each weekday who do.

100,000.

I didn’t know there were that many Moonies in DC. That’s almost the same number of Washington City Paper’s well-defined audience group of highly educated and affluent young professional adults. Still, 100,000 daily readers of the Times. A paper that is the laughing stock of the publising world with its poorly written articles and blantant conservatism.

100,000. Are you one of them? If so… why?!

12 Comments so far

  1. UnusualCandor (unregistered) on August 19th, 2005 @ 5:36 pm

    I read them both, but prefer the Times. As much as you complain of the Times “blatant conservatism, I despise the Post for their blatant liberalism. I have not seen them write anything that wasn’t critical of any Republican.

    About the only papers that are more liberally biased are New York Times and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.


  2. Samantha (unregistered) on August 19th, 2005 @ 6:04 pm

    unusualcandor,

    The simple fact that neither the NYT nor the Post was against the Iraq invasion pretty much crushes your whole point. Oh, and add the fact that the NYT talked about Whitewater and the Lewinsky scandal every day, front page, for about a year.


  3. wayan (unregistered) on August 19th, 2005 @ 6:22 pm

    Liberal or not, I’m talking quality reporting here. While the Post isn’t always the best (they forget us often in their DC Blog lists), they are way better than the Times.

    From the number of references and quotes, to the logic used, to the grammar and style, the Post is much more educated, advanced, professional, and sophisticated than the Times. Not quite NYT level, but very good. The NYT, now that’s America’s newspaper of record.


  4. Don (unregistered) on August 19th, 2005 @ 6:55 pm

    Whenever I go to the chick-fil-a drivethru I notice they offer free copies of the Washington Times with breakfast sales. Perhaps their circulation numbers are 80% with-a-biscuit giveaways!


  5. wayan (unregistered) on August 19th, 2005 @ 10:42 pm

    Ooo.. that’s a good idea for a whole other post – Who really eats at chick-fil-a?


  6. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on August 19th, 2005 @ 11:00 pm

    Dude, Chick-Fil-A is delish. Their chicken sandwiches totally outstrip McD’s. And the waffle fries? Good shit, right there. As fast food goes, quality.


  7. Lenwood (unregistered) on August 20th, 2005 @ 2:13 am

    I saw the guy at the airport last Friday. He was hanging out waiting on a ride.


  8. wayan (unregistered) on August 20th, 2005 @ 11:12 am

    Right, Lenwood, you make as much sense as the Wash Times


  9. Anonymous Coward (unregistered) on August 20th, 2005 @ 4:22 pm

    The only people who think the Post has a liberal bias are conservatives who think anything not biased toward them is biased against them. (For example, Fox News is ‘fair and balanced,’ everything else must be liberal.) Remember that the Post editorial board supported the Iraq War, much to the consternation of many local readers, and their own ombudsman still dings them regularly for downplaying stories that contradict the Administration’s positions.

    The bias of right-wing readers does not fully account for the Times’ circulation, however. There’s also racial polarization. Marion Barry and his supporters claimed the drug charges against him were part of a big conspiracy by white people (‘The Plan’), and the Washington Post was part of it — despite the fact that the Post endorsed Marion Barry all 3 times he ran for Mayor before being busted. Also, there was that hubbub when the Wash. Post Magazine’s very first issue had no pictures of black people. (Obviously, more evidence of The Plan.) Even after all these years, the eastern half of town doesn’t trust the Post.

    Lastly, there are legitimate complaints with the Post’s coverage. First of all, if another paper reports something first, the Post pretends it didn’t happen, or downplays it as much as possible. They can’t stand being scooped. Second, they focus so much on being a national Paper of Record (competing with the New York Times) that they don’t have the depth of local coverage they should. That’s why the Gazette, Journal and other smaller local papers have a market. I once subscribed to the Washington Times myself (in addition to the Post) purely for their local news section.


  10. JD94 (unregistered) on August 21st, 2005 @ 10:00 am

    Every paper, news etwork etc. has some type of political bias, but in today’s world, how many people rely on one newspaper for everything? The Times has much better NHL coverage for the 3 of us in DC who are actually hockey fans.

    Does the Post lean left, yes, but they also feature Charles Krauthammer and George Will regularly as well, two of the most respected conservative writers in the country.

    During the election, when Sandy Berger “borrowed” some sensitive information, both the Post and the Times reported the same article I believe from the AP. The Times included that Berger had been working as an advisor for John Kerry, the Post left this part out.

    But more importantly, this whole red state/blue state, conservative/liberal thing is the most overblown, overhyped useless propaganda around. Most people have beliefs that cross political lines, i.e they are pro-life but against the war, pro-choice but don’t agree with gay marriage. That is who the American voter is.

    So while a paper can lean left or right, they can’t survive or serve anyone unless they make some effort to include all opinions.


  11. Vintagecoils (unregistered) on August 22nd, 2005 @ 8:47 am

    I have often wondered what is the difference between the people who read theses papers. I use to deliver both now i only deliver the times. That Sunday paper destroyed my car. Any way I had more posr custormers per mile and the people who got the post were very generous on the tips and not big whiners and complainers. The Times customers rarely gave tips and if they did it was at a rate of all my times tips for the year equaled one post customer for a month. The post people were realistic and understod that rain, snow, ice and auto breakdown may at some point in the year cause a paper to be delayed or missed. The times customers were calling their Congress men(no joke) for a few missed or delayed papers. That shows a difference but I cannot explain what.?????


  12. wayan (unregistered) on August 22nd, 2005 @ 9:09 am

    Wow, VC, that’s an interesting observation. Kinda says that Times readers are reall uptight, while Post readers are more relaxed. Hmm… conservative vs. liberal? Maybe.



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.