Thousands of conservatives and even some moderates have complained during my more than three-year term that The Post is too liberal; many have stopped subscribing, including more than 900 in the past four weeks.
It pains me to see lost subscribers and revenue, especially when newspapers are shrinking. Conservative complaints can be wrong: The mainstream media were not to blame for John McCain's loss; Barack Obama's more effective campaign and the financial crisis were.
But some of the conservatives' complaints about a liberal tilt are valid. Journalism naturally draws liberals; we like to change the world. I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for Obama. I did. There are centrists at The Post as well. But the conservatives I know here feel so outnumbered that they don't even want to be quoted by name in a memo.
The Post lost almost a thousand subscriptions a month. Certainly, much of this is due to the fact that you can read the Post online and most Americans are tightening their belts. Why pay for what you can get online for free? The Post's main competition, The Washington Times, has not been immune to the changes in the industry either.
But don't discount the frustration of readers who are tired of the bias. In a little over two months, the Post had 36 stories on "Troopergate". But enter "Tony Rezko/Obama" into the Post's search engine...and you also get 36 entries...EIGHT of them AFTER the election.
So basically the Post focused more attention in two months on a non-scandal involving the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate, than it has in two years on a real scandal involving the Democratic Presidential candidate.
Don't think that (ex)readers didn't notice.