Beltway politicians and bureaucrats love to generalize about “the American people”—who they are, what they want, how they feel about federal policy. Now that The Washington Post has decided to close its last three national bureaus, in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles, more of those pronouncements will likely go unchallenged.
In a memo last week, the paper’s top editors said the cuts were necessitated by “limited resources and increased competitive pressure,” forcing the paper to concentrate on core subjects shaping life in the Washington region and on the country’s politics and policies. It’s a shame—perhaps a financial necessity, given the bureaus’ not-insignificant expenses in a newspaper division that has already wracked up a $166.7 million operating loss for this year’s first nine months—but, still, a shame.
Landing a coveted job in a Post national bureau was like getting the chance to set up a journalistic boutique; talented writers and reporters were tasked with producing smart, detail-rich stories that enhanced, clarified, and often served as counter-programming to the paper’s hard-core politics and policy offerings. The boutiques have a decades-long history of showcasing exquisite work from some of the nation’s best journalists.
David Maraniss, for example, developed his first serious biography of soon-to-be president Bill Clinton while working as the paper’s Austin-based correspondent in the late 1980s. During his mid-1980s tour in California, Post education columnist extraordinaire Jay Mathews connected that state’s immigration, education, environment, and other policy innovations with the federal debates on the East Coast. And T.R. Reid, who did two stints in Denver, one in the mid-1980s and a second earlier this decade, covered the Interior Department from the ground backward to Washington.
These recollections come courtesy of former Post managing editor Steve Coll, himself no slouch when it comes to reporting out of a national bureau. In fact, a Coll story from his stint as the paper’s Manhattan-based Wall Street correspondent convinced me to pursue a job at the Post.
Stripped across the top of A-1 on Oct. 20, 1987, was Coll’s intimate account of the roiling hours of the stock market’s collapse, a you-are-there tour de force that became a model of how to cover such stories. The opening grafs:
At the end, when the market capitulated into free fall, Mark Mehl, the 35-year-old director of institutional stock trading at the large Wall Street firm Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc., lapsed into an eerie and private silence.
Chaos raged around him-hoarse voices shouted orders, shirt-sleeved traders juggled telephones, news flashed across the big electronic screens in Drexel’s open stock trading room-but Mehl just sat there, staring at his computer screen. All day he had been trying to provide some leadership: standing and clapping at his traders like a football coach, barking encouragement into a microphone, and sometimes banging on a cookie tin to make himself heard above the din.
Now, just after 3 p.m., he sat sullenly behind his module of telephone banks, computer terminals and electronic tickers. His shoulders were slumped and his chin rested on his hand.
“The honest answer is, I’ve been a little humbled,” Mehl said when asked what had come over him. “And when I get humbled, I stay quiet. We took our bet earlier today. We made a mistake.”
Written on deadline, reported in real-time, the story was all Coll. He called his editors in Washington that bloody Monday morning, telling them he was heading to the financial district to find a story. They didn’t hear from him again until after the markets had closed, when he called to tell them he had the story. Reporters in D.C. covered the crash numbers, the impact, the what-it-all-means that day. Coll did what only a reporter on the ground, with sources, could do: He got himself inside a place to watch it all unfold, and then brought readers to the scene.
More recently, Bill Booth was a must-read correspondent in Los Angeles, dancing his own steps amid the crush of entertainment industry reporters. His piece about the day Paris Hilton was released from jail crystallized why we cared so much about this odd young woman, his writing powered by the authority and context that comes from living in the world he’s writing about.
“You can say ‘Internet, Internet, Internet,’” but the truth is, a lot of trends and ideas come from L.A. and you can’t get ahead of that if you’re just reacting to what people are saying on Twitter,” said Leslie Yazel, Booth’s former editor when she worked at the Post running arts and entertainment coverage for Style.
Of course, no one inside the paper is expressing glee at the bureaus’ demise; the Post must have protected them from financial pressures as long as they felt they could. In their memo last week announcing the closures, the paper’s top three editors vowed their “commitment to national news of interest to our readers is undiminished, and we will maintain the level and caliber of coverage our readers expect.”
Despite management’s vow that they will fly reporters to the scene to cover big stories, Michael Powell, a former Post New York bureau chief, worries that the paper will exert tight control over travel money. “When I left, they didn’t want to do flights to Buffalo [because of the expense],” he said.
Powell, who joined The New York Times in 2007, said he was pained by the Post’s bureau closures, adding that although he doesn’t know the extent of the financial pressures on management, “there’s just a disorienting lack of confidence that the Post exudes.”
He scoffs at the new “for and about Washington” focus: “The paper was intelligently evolving alongside its readership. Now they pretend that readers just want Washington news?” Powell thought management was adopting a “thoroughly antiquated view of Washington” which assumes everyone there is connected to the federal government. “The city is infinitely more complex and sophisticated now,” he said.
- 1
- 2


Yes, but that is largely all history. What is happening today is that Politico, an Internet upstart that has a 35,000 printed version, is eating up the Post on political stories. As you know, politics makes Washington work, and it is embarrassing how the Post is now regularly beaten on what should be its hometown story. Now the owner of Politico is expanding his operations, and hiring reporters and editors for a local news version of his operation. This further eats into the Post's base.
I frankly do not understand how the Post is in such dire straits. In the last few weeks, the Washington Blade has gone under, and the Washington Times is cutting almost half of its staff and going to a giveaway model. The Post owns the suburban weeklies. Perhaps the Post has become too fat and happy. It took them three days to put a staff reporter on the Tiger Woods story (they previously used AP), and although they broke the story of the White House gatecrashers, other outlets beat them on key developments of a story they should have owned. There are big financial stories, but you don't read them in the Post. This is a newspaper that is in deep trouble.
#1 Posted by edward, CJR on Thu 3 Dec 2009 at 11:57 AM
I don't really agree with Edward's analysis or even the facts he cites in support of it. For one thing the Post has pretty definitively owned the Salahi story. Politico may get Web hits, but when they brag about "beating" other news outlets, it often seems like they're actually having a competition to find the most trivial scooplet.
It's simply silly to suggest that if the paper had been more aggressive about pursuing miniscoops then they'd be in good financial shape. How exactly would that have kept the classified and print advertisers?
The simple fact is that the paper has enormously increased its leadership, and while it's possible the increase could have been more enormous, it's just not near enough to compensate for declining ad revenues. Although it's satisfying to suggest that falling revenue is a deserved comeuppance, the fact is that the falling revenue doesn't have all that much to do with the editorial product.
#2 Posted by jay, CJR on Thu 3 Dec 2009 at 12:56 PM
I meant to say "the paper has enormously increased its Readership", not leadership.
#3 Posted by Jay, CJR on Thu 3 Dec 2009 at 01:02 PM
In an age where electronic communication is rich and quick, what is the real need for a news agency to maintain a local bureau?
I've known several businesses that have shut down the physical spot of the business to save on rental costs and utilities, while retaining the staff who then communicate through a VPN to the head office. I don't see why the local bureau can't convert into the home bureau where reporters living in local cities can work on their stories in house.
It would offload the bureau expense onto the reporter who has to pay for a place to live anyways. The news division can pay for the internet and the VPN costs while the reporter pays for the home machine and the rent.
Isn't this how foreign correspondents often work?
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 3 Dec 2009 at 01:18 PM
The Washington Post has hardly "enormously increased its readership." The latest official ABC circulation figures show the Washington Post's circulation dropped 6.40 percent to 582,844.in the last year. It once touched 800,000. More worrying is that online users were down 29 percent. Why should advertisers put their ads in a paper with diminishing readership?
#5 Posted by edward, CJR on Thu 3 Dec 2009 at 02:18 PM
In closing the bureaus, the executive editor should have at least put some positive spin on the subject, rather than saying "we are not a national news organization of record serving a general audience. Nor are we a wire service or cable channel."
The Washington Post is still the newspaper of record in covering Washington, and it still has a news service, made stronger through its recent alliance with Bloomberg News.
His public relations gaffs are incredible.
#6 Posted by MattT, CJR on Thu 3 Dec 2009 at 04:01 PM
The Post has let its local coverage slip badly, in part because the best people at the paper never wanted to cover or supervise local or regional news. The staff's pretty much entrely turned over now and as a reader and local resident I'd like to see more effort and institutional support given to affairs of DC, Maryland and Virginia. T. R Reid and Jay Mathews and Steve Coll were great, but as the extant bureaus shrank and those stars all left or got reassigned, the people whose bylines remained spent a lot of time on fashion and entertainment and celebrities. The New York and LA bureaus became a luxury. I'm surprised they lasted this long.
#7 Posted by Jeff Kosnett, CJR on Thu 3 Dec 2009 at 05:29 PM
the paper sucks at covering the dc metro area and always will because they have a suburban white guy mentality about this. the readership is shrinking because the population that is growing is not the white suburban type. i mean, who cares about a $400 purse? but that's what the post writes about all the time. or covers minorities as only stereotypes. the dc area has the largest concentration of upper middle class minorities because of the federal government but you never see stories like that in the paper. it's all about illegals or poor black people. no one wants to buy a paper to continually read stereotypes. and the publisher is a dingbat. just look at her. she exudes nothing but dingbatiness.
#8 Posted by ohbrother, CJR on Fri 4 Dec 2009 at 03:37 PM
the paper sucks at covering the dc metro area and always will because they have a suburban white guy mentality about this. the readership is shrinking because the population that is growing is not the white suburban type. i mean, who cares about a $400 purse? but that's what the post writes about all the time. or covers minorities as only stereotypes. the dc area has the largest concentration of upper middle class minorities because of the federal government but you never see stories like that in the paper. it's all about illegals or poor black people. no one wants to buy a paper to continually read stereotypes. and the publisher is a dingbat. just look at her. she exudes nothing but dingbatiness.
#9 Posted by ohbrother, CJR on Fri 4 Dec 2009 at 03:38 PM
I have to somewhat agree with ohbrother. I was saddened by Brachuli's statement that "we are not a national newspaper of record" -- that is an admission of retrenchment from how the Post was at least perceived for most of the past three decades. But it is also true that while the Post was busy being a national newspaper it often covered Brooklyn better than it covered Brookland. I remember my disgust a few years ago in reading a feature story about an East of the River neighborhood I grew up in that was written as if the neighborhood was in a foreign country that would have been utterly unfamiliar to its readers. I do think the paper has to be a smart and intense chronicler of its home turf, but if the paper fails to connect Washington policies to their real-world consequences in the rest of the country, not only will readers be ill served but our troubled democracy will be in even worse shape -- especially when so few other media institutions have the resources to fulfill that mission.
A thought: The Post went bankrupt once during the Depression, to be rescued by the Graham family, which put it on the road to prominence through solid journalism. It's a different world today, to be sure, but might a bankruptcy and an ownership shakeup be what the Post needs now?
#10 Posted by DC Proud, CJR on Sat 5 Dec 2009 at 10:25 AM