Far-Left ‘Journalist’ Blames Conservatives After WaPo Layoffs – Apparently We Should Fund Our Own Smear Campaign
The Washington Post recently announced sweeping layoffs and acknowledged declines in search traffic and daily output, admitting that much of its coverage was directed at a narrow slice of readers and that trust in the paper had weakened. The piece argues that this admission should have ended the discussion, but it continues by contrasting opinions about whether there is a viable market for conservative-oriented hard news. It cites Alex Kirshner’s claim that there isn’t a serious market for such reporting, while the author contends there absolutely is, blaming biased editorial choices for alienating a broad audience.
The author describes a shift since the Obama era,when legacy outlets’ reporting and tone diminished trust,leading many conservatives to seek alternatives.The piece highlights the rise of online platforms, social media, and talk radio as real-time, self-reliant sources that better align with conservative audiences’ views, effectively rendering bloated newspaper staffs unnecessary. It argues that conservatives did not ask to become villains in the national media story and were not obligated to bankroll perceived smear campaigns; rather, they responded to a market that favored more direct, less adversarial reporting.
Personal anecdotes are sprinkled throughout,including reflections on reading habits before digital media and on longstanding distrust of a biased press. The overall message is that legacy media’s business model is collapsing because it did not serve a plural, truth-seeking audience, and that the market has spoken through the growth of alternative media ecosystems.
When The Washington Post announced sweeping layoffs this week, those in charge at the dying legacy outlet briefly flirted with some honesty.
The paper acknowledged that its search traffic has been cut in half over a three-year period. Daily story output had also dropped. The brass even admitted that much of the garbage being put out was “for one slice of the audience,” as the BBC reported.
That should have been the end of the conversation.
But for so many people on the left, self-reflection is impossible.
Alex Kirshner, a contributing writer for the leftist outlet Slate, responded to a post on these facts by Max Tani of Semafor with an absurd claim.
“There is not a serious market for ‘hard news’ for conservatives,” Kirshner wrote on X.
He added that editors know this, but would rather “scold their own employees for not doing an impossible job.”
There is not a serious market for “hard news” for conservatives. Murray knows this. Every editor at every major news publication in the country knows this. They just don’t want to say why and would prefer to scold their own employees for not doing an impossible job https://t.co/bnmPFmbMJU
— Alex Kirshner (@alex_kirshner) February 4, 2026
That statement is beyond detached from reality.
There absolutely is a market for hard news among conservatives. There always has been. If you’re reading this now, that’s why.
What there is not a market for is paying to be lied to, sneered at, and treated like an enemy.
For most of America’s history, newspapers were edited for Americans. Plural. They landed on doorsteps and job sites. In the last century, many people read more than one paper a day.
They might have argued about opinions, but people more or less trusted the facts.
My own father, a blue-collar conservative, read multiple newspapers while working. I read them, too. Local and national.
I bought my last physical newspaper somewhere around 2007.
There was a moment when it hit me that I was reading things written by people who hated me, and that I was funding it.
Meanwhile, better reporting was already migrating online.
The broader shift was not by accident. Newspapers became stale and rabidly ideological. The bias stopped hiding. Reporting during the Obama years shattered what little trust remained for millions of Americans.
That is when conservative media exploded.
Not because conservatives rejected journalism, but because legacy outlets like The Washington Post rejected their audience. If they had done their jobs, people like me would not have ours.
Conservatives did not wake up one day itching for alternative media. We were pushed there after growing tired of being the target of a daily, coordinated assault on our values, our families, our faith, and our country.
So we tuned out, changed the dial, and stopped paying for the war on us.
Now, entire media ecosystems exist that make bloated newspaper staffs unnecessary. We can watch news unfold in real time on X. We can follow reporters directly on YouTube or Rumble.
We can choose writers who respect the truth and us.
Talk radio is no longer the last refuge. The monopoly the left had on information systems was taken without a single piece of legislation. The market spoke.
Without a business model that forces their product into American homes, newspapers like The Washington Post are failing. And now we are told that the failure is our fault.
Some have even blamed Jeff Bezos for refusing to endlessly subsidize the decline. In reality, he looks like a parent who finally stopped enabling adult children who refuse to change.
Reality is crashing down on legacy media.
A company that writes for a narrow audience, admits it has tunnel vision, and routinely misleads readers is no longer profitable? How is that my problem or my concern?
Conservatives did not ask to become villains in the national media’s story, and we are not obligated to bankroll our own smear campaign.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
