Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I somehow missed this a week ago, but the news was inevitable. The Washington Times appears to be all-but-gone.
Nearly three decades after its founding by officials of the Unification Church, the Times said Wednesday it is laying off at least 40 percent of its staff and shifting mainly to free distribution.In what amounts to a bid for survival, the company said the print edition will focus on its core strengths: politics, national security, investigative reporting and "cultural coverage based on traditional values." That means the Times will end its run as a full-service newspaper, slashing its coverage of local news, sports and features.
And here's the new business model:
But the dream has now been downsized. Beginning early next year, the paper will be distributed free "in select areas," the company said, particularly at federal government offices and other key institutions. Newsstand sales are being deemphasized -- they will take place at fewer locations -- and subscriptions will be discouraged by the charging of "premium prices."
I guess Rev. Moon got tired of spending $40 million a year to subsidize an obviously failing business. Good riddance.
Politics
Comments
As an old Washingtonian, I do not mourn the Times. The model of a paper with effective coverage of local and national news but a far-right (or left) editorial slant on purpose is just not good for our discourse. For one thing, it institutionalized the false idea that 'liberal' papers like the WaPo and NYT could be balanced by 'conservative' papers like the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times. In practice the 'liberal' papers are actually moderate and the conservative papers are not, creating at the same time a conservative drift in media and a confirmation of the propaganda point that the media are 'liberal'. Result--utterly ineffective journalism.
Plus Pruden is just a terrible human being.
ice9
Posted by: ice9 | December 9, 2009 9:45 AM
"Newsstand sales are being deemphasized -- they will take place at fewer locations -- and subscriptions will be discouraged by the charging of "premium prices.""
I get the giving the paper away for free bit, but what makes less sense is driving away paying customers through the charging of excessive rates. If people are willing to give you money for something you're giving away for free, why not take? To do otherwise seems bat shit crazy even for the moonies.
Posted by: History Punk | December 9, 2009 9:48 AM
But they had such a clever op-ed on climate change yesterday, by reknown climate scientist Sarah Palin, explaining that since all temperature measurements are tainted, Earth climate is whatever she says it is.
Posted by: _Arthur | December 9, 2009 10:06 AM
It has always been distributed free to Congressional offices.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 9, 2009 10:08 AM
History Punk@2
The thing that occurs to me is that if they eliminate subscriptions, they can save money by getting rid of most of their delivery system.
Posted by: Michael I | December 9, 2009 10:14 AM
Impressive. I like how they are being utterly transparent about who is worth bothering to try and influence.
Posted by: phisrow | December 9, 2009 10:22 AM
Let's not be too quick to celebrate until we find out what alternative propaganda route they're using. The Moonies were never concerned about the Times' profitability (otherwise it wouldn't have lasted one year); their first priority was ALWAYS propaganda, and we really need to have a good look at how this decision might serve that unchanging objective.
Chances are, they're not in defeat, they're just regrouping.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 9, 2009 10:28 AM
Arthur: But they [Wash Times] had such a clever op-ed on climate change yesterday, by reknown climate scientist Sarah Palin, explaining that since all temperature measurements are tainted, Earth climate is whatever she says it is.
The WashPo has the same op-ed running today. She's touting her experience as an Alaskan again...it might as well be called the "I can see weather changes from my house" op-ed. And I'm just as convinced as I was the first time she used that argument.
Posted by: eric | December 9, 2009 10:32 AM
It's my humble opinion that the WaPo's mutation of its editorial section into a neocon and conservative mouthpiece not at all concerned with facts or intellectual honesty came exclusively from its putting Fred Hiatt in charge of that portion of their paper.
I'd love to see an analysis by an informed insider regarding how the decline of the Washington Times has influenced the WaPo's decline to the point that many readers, including myself, rarely read their articles to boycott their rank dishonesty in the editorial section and growing bias in the straight news portion as well.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 9, 2009 10:52 AM
Joel Achenberg has a pretty good response. Palin's just upset that by sullying good science with politics, the scientists are encroaching on her job.
Posted by: eric | December 9, 2009 11:07 AM
"In what amounts to a bid for survival, the company said the print edition will focus on its core strength: telling likes slightly less egregious than those published by Joe Farah"
Get me re-write, STAT!!
As for "giving away" the paper, that's a model that's served them well for both fundraising and recruiting.
Posted by: democommie | December 9, 2009 11:49 AM
Maybe with the diminishment of the WaTimes, that annoying blond Coulter-wannabe who works there and appears regularly on The McLaughlin Group on PBS will slink away into deserved oblivion and annoy me no further.
One can hope.
Posted by: gary l. day | December 9, 2009 11:51 AM
"...telling LIES slightly less egregious..."
Posted by: democommie | December 9, 2009 11:52 AM
I suppose this explains the Washington Post's slide to the right -- they have been expecting this and hope to pick up the Times' old subscribers.
Posted by: xebecs | December 9, 2009 12:29 PM
I had fun once watching my father explain to my grandfather that his excellent conservative paper that supported traditional American values was run by the decidely non-Christian Moonie cult. He decided that goodless liberals were a better choice.
Posted by: katydid13 | December 9, 2009 2:38 PM
So, basically, the Washington Times is going to become the Moonie version of Falun Gong's free "Epoch Times" paper.
Posted by: Jon H | December 9, 2009 2:39 PM
But ... but, what will the homeless wrap themselves in to keep warm? Or is global arming supposed to take care of this?
Ohh ... okay... think of the fishmongers who will have nothing to wrap their wares in. But they went to white paper and plastic a long time ago.
Ummm ... think of all the unlined bird cages.
Help me out here. I know there is a tragic side to this but I'm just not capturing the pathos, the great loss, the empty hole in the heart of the nation's capital that the loss of this great institution must surely be.
Posted by: Art | December 9, 2009 2:54 PM
But, but, but, - if the Moonie Times goes out of business, then how will Moon the Elder get the access to be crowned as the messiah or some such nonsense in the event the GOP takes back the Senate (or House)?
Posted by: BC | December 9, 2009 2:54 PM
Apparently the Moonies don't advertise enough in their own rag.
Posted by: MadScientist | December 9, 2009 3:39 PM
if the Moonie Times goes out of business, then how will Moon the Elder get the access to be crowned as the messiah or some such nonsense in the event the GOP takes back the Senate (or House)?
Politico?
Posted by: Uncle Glenny | December 9, 2009 6:52 PM
I don't know much about the newspaper industry, but... getting rid of subscriptions? Seriously? In some industries, a regular, consistent source of income like a subscription is worth more than its apparently value, because the reliability allows businesses to plan ahead more effectively.
Posted by: Snoof | December 9, 2009 9:25 PM