Comments on: Jim Brady Talks About Leaving Washingtonpost.com

By: Nikkel

Nikkel — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 03:47:34 +0000

I bet I'm boosting your alexa ranking, haha. I like reading at your site. Thanks for the hard work!

By: Future seekers need better rear-view mirrors « Charlotte-Anne Lucas

Future seekers need better rear-view mirrors « Charlotte-Anne Lucas — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:58:37 +0000

[...] The Washington Post cannibalized its Web site more publicly, as detailed in this City Paper article and interview with Jim Brady. [...]

By: floor jacks

floor jacks — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:27:52 +0000

It's the first time I commented here and I should say that you give genuine, and quality information for other bloggers! Great job.
p.s. You have an awesome template for your blog. Where have you got it from?

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 03:40:23 +0000

Joe,

You're right about frontpage. He (or she) has an almost identical comment on a Jeff Jarvis post. This person obviously did not see the point that latimes.com has more in revenues than the entire LAT newsroom payroll.

By: Joe Clark

Joe Clark — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 21:24:40 +0000

thefrontpage’s comment, to the extent it could even be read, reads like spam.

By: al gonzales

al gonzales — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 19:12:41 +0000

"Peter" - an ad hominem attack is the sign of a coward & someone with no legitimate argument. & I suppose "Peter Net" is your real name? OK... well, Alfonso Miguel Gonzales y Ybarra just so happens to be my "real" name, or at least the name on my birth certificate, so "shame on you" you naughty boy.

By: Peter Net

Peter Net — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:36:38 +0000

Shame on you for being so ugly with your words, Al. The rest of the paper is worth way more than the time you put in picking a fake name.

By: al gonzales

al gonzales — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 16:09:37 +0000

The NY Times has an excellent website; the WaPo site is the worst I've seen. I read about a dozen papers online every day, & trying to navigate through the Post's website is a nightmare. It's good they kicked this guy to the curb. There's no excuse for such a poorly designed website. The Post's main problem is that it's a bad newspaper. All the income is coming from the Kaplan business. Most of the good writers at the Post left long ago; the "investigative journalists" now save everything for their books; the rest of the paper is just worthless. By the way, does anyone know anyone more idiotic than Ruth Marcus? or more craven than Fred Hiatt?

By: furnk

furnk — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:25:01 +0000

Nice comment.

By: thefrontpage

thefrontpage — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 14:04:27 +0000

So what is Jim Brady going to do now?

Is anyone brave enough to say what many people are saying, and this has zero to do with Jim Brady: Newspaper web sites are terrible, through and through, from coast to coast, no matter the newspaper. They are not newspapers. They are cluttered. They are unorganized. They look and feel terrible. There are no ads, no inserts, no coupons, no easy, user-friendly guides or resources for many items, at the Post site, you can't find the Style section, breaking news is slow to post at many newspaper web sites, many sections just contain lists, with no pictures, they are generally non-user-friendly, there are not big ads, and, in general, they look and feel unfriendly, cold, non-user-friendly and non-newsworthy. That goes for 100 percent of newspaper web sites, nationwide. The whole, entire newspaper web thing is a failure--and look how it's destroyed the newspaper industry. It just does not work like a newspaper works, and until newspapers wake up and realize this basic truth, the industry, and web sites, will continue to fail. Journalism has only journalism to blame for its downfall. Newspapers are still, to this day, the best source of news and information and facts and resources, nationwide, coast to coast. That's the reality in journalism in 2008.