Washingtonpost.com is not Facebook!

When I first read the quote from the pillar, “"Providing utility, engagement, and convenience for our local readers," I took "engagement" as refering to readers' engagement with the paper itself. I know that many newspapers today are struggling with trying to get their readers more involved with the paper, especially online. So I was thinking they meant introducing more along the lines of games, quizzes, photo galleries and other interactive activities, especially online. This idea would make sense, and the Washington Post website does seem to be fairly interactive in parts. But seeing as how I’m no expert on the Washington Post, I’m going to take Tom Grubisich’s word that “engagement” really refers to out in the community.

Following that assumption, then sure, I agree that the Washington Post needs to get more involved with its community, but so should every other media. Yes, Washington is suffering, but so are many other places, and not only in America either. But to contrast the Washington Post website with Facebook is ridiculous. The two exist for very different reasons, and really are not comparable.

Also, while I agree that media branches should give back to the community, I think it’s more important for them to cover problems in the community and draw awareness to these issues that need fixing. The primary purpose of newspapers is uncovering and sharing news, not throwing money at fixing old water pipes.

Finally, the anonymity on the Washington Post website may not make Tom Grubisich feel “welcome,” but it does allow readers to post comments without any fear of repercussions, which I’m sure does increase the number of comments overall. Again, this is not Facebook. I certainly don’t believe everything I see posted on Facebook, so why is Grubisich encouraging change from a reputable newspaper site to a social networking “anyone can say what they want” site?

In conclusion, I understand Grubisich’s frustration that no one is doing more to fix up the Washington community, but I disagree that the Washington Post is the one who should be applying that band-aid. And I think that washingtonpost.com needs to continue striving to be an interactive NEWS site, not a newsy-ish INTERACTIVE site.