Comments on: WaPo Kills Sunday Source

By: Final Thoughts on Allen v. Roig-Franzia - City Desk - Washington City Paper

Final Thoughts on Allen v. Roig-Franzia - City Desk - Washington City Paper — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:06:31 +0000

[...] the Style section. On the contrary, he has invested in it, transferring talent from the shuttered Sunday Source and other spots in the newsroom, not to mention bringing in Martel. Dividends have come in the form [...]

By: Ancora-Imparo: “I am still learning” » Blog Archive » High/Low 9.21.09

Mon, 21 Sep 2009 22:30:20 +0000

[...] April? I read in the Washington Post (cause I enjoy reading the paper.. especially when the Sunday Source was a part of it. Well they were going to Start a new section called “On Love” and I [...]

By: Fed Up

Fed Up — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 23:43:18 +0000

As a freelancer for the Source, even I can't say I'm sorry to see it go. That section was notorious for rejecting story ideas, then serving them up with the most minor of tweaks to favored writers. The editing process was a nightmare. Don't even get me started on the weak pay.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 19:02:11 +0000

My theory about newspapers is the same about best-selling books. Just because people are buying them doesn't mean they are reading them. People buy the Sunday Post for the comics and the coupons. They surf it for free on the weekdays.

By: Don

Don — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 18:58:11 +0000

When Snarky becomes a bad thing then the Colbert Report and Daily Show will become the worst TV shows being broadcast.

Also, did Al G really call people who read free newspapers: "people too lazy &/or cheap to buy & read a real newspaper" and do so in the comments section of a free weekly?

Al, for more, go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

By: thefrontpage

thefrontpage — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 16:51:30 +0000

The Sunday Source, as 9.9 out of 10 people know and understand, was one of the Post's worst decisions in the last five years, along with about 20 other bad decisions--and this is coming from a group of still-diehard Washington Post fans and subscribers, some of whom are journalists, some of whom are not. Anyways, the Source stunk. It was terrible. It was juevenile, snarky (that's a bad thing, twentysomethings), childish, very amateurish, poorly-written, poorly-edited, filled with non-news, lacking in news, lacking in style and substance, and strangely, dumbly, duplicative of other, better feature, entertainment and popular culture news that could be found every day in Style and every Friday in the still-great Weekend section. The Source should have been a two-year experiment--and nothing more. By the way, folks, no one is being fired with the thankful Source death--the staff is being incorporate into Style and Weekend, according to the Post.

By: Tricia Olszewski

Tricia Olszewski — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:30:32 +0000

I'm stunned that it took so long; I figured it'd be gone within a year.

But I gotta admit I started to love how awfully convenient it was to get a side of makeup advice with my world news.

By: Nancy Imperiale

Nancy Imperiale — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 13:53:29 +0000

Den, I find myself laughing and agreeing with some of what you wrote. But I also have to reassure you and al not to worry so much.

Many of us "notebook dumper" feature writers are out of jobs, thanks to the Internet, and ADD readers, and the sorry state of newspapers.

Looks like some colleagues in Washington will be joining us. Great. More people to try and outbid for freelance work.

Just be careful what you wish for. I'd rather read a 3,000-word feature story than a 3,000-word technical manual.

By: al gonzales

al gonzales — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 22:37:31 +0000

I'm a hyperbolic, alcoholic, melancholic, vitriolic man. Thanks for your concern.

By: Den

Den — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 20:22:24 +0000

Thanks Dave. I'm a big fan of the Style/Magazine's glory period in the 1980s/early 1990s. Bradley really knew how to make sure that section hit the right notes. No editor had ever attempted to launch a section like that, and he knew if it wasn't brilliant, it would have failed. As a result, it like getting a great magazine read in your newspaper every day. But, as it happens even with the great magazines, talent moves elsewhere and the new hires simply don't have the chops. They think anything snarky is inherently clever. (This means you, HS.) Anything long for the sake of being long is automatically great. (This means you, pretty much everyone on staff.) So instead of engaging readers, they simply indulge themselves. And would it kill the Style Invitational to actually be funny again on more than an occasional basis? It hasn't been the same since Weingarten stopped editing it. He's one of the last great talents in the Post features dept these days.

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:29:22 +0000

Hyperbolic much, al?

By: al gonzales

al gonzales — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 17:22:13 +0000

The "Source" section stunk. The "three guys" column was about the most stupid thing ever to appear in print. The rest of the section was filled with the same juvenile, snarky diatribes that appear in the "Style" section. & that trash that clutters the buses & subways that the Post foists upon people too lazy &/or cheap to buy & read a real newspaper - I think it's called the Express - is perhaps the absolute nadir of American "publishing" & the Post should pay $10,000 to Metro everyday for the costs of picking up that trash. The cheap, lazy people who take a copy apparently have not enough sense or citizenship to dispose of the copies properly.

By: Dave

Dave — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 15:09:18 +0000

I agree with Den. Even though the Source was a total advertising shill, I don't think it ever pretended that it wasn't. It was very good for what it was. I also liked the books/CDs/Games grid. And, as Den said, the Source was often times head and shoulders more enjoyable than Sunday's Style section, which is nearly unreadable at this point. I can't say I'll be crying myself to sleep over the demise of the Sunday Source, but it wasn't terrible. You have to give it that.

By: Den

Den — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 14:12:26 +0000

Call me crazy, but I liked Sunday Source. Especially the books/CDs/Games grid. It was a quick way to find out what was out,and whether it was any good, and the writing in the section was generally crisp and focused and clever. All great magazines have FOB sections. Source was the equivalent of the Sunday Post FOB section.

Yeah, I read the long stories on A-1 too, not to mention the 3,000 word marathons in Style (unless I can tell the writer is sucking the thumb before the jump ... Style seems to really be into hiring thumbsucker, notebook dumpers over the last 10 years). But newspapers should be able to serve all kinds of interests and needs and Source was very good at what it did: Quick hit service features. At least nobody would accuse any of their writers of dumping their notebooks in the interest of self-gratification.

By: bob

bob — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:39:38 +0000

The funny part is that the Post already has a very well-put-together product that does everything the Source did and much more, and has since 2003. And it comes out every weekday. And it's free. And they give it away at Metro stations every morning. Ring any bells?