Dear Washington Post,
This afternoon while I was checking my e-mail at the local library, I saw that you had sent me an invitation to purchase digital content from you, and the appeal was that I should support the work that is at the heart of our democracy. Normally I prefer to consider our nation’s political system a republic, in that it is bound by constitutional rules, rather than merely being a majority vote, as a democracy would imply, but I do not think such times as ours are are best served by quibbling over the definitions of words when there are such massive problems as currently exist. The larger problem with your statement is that you consider your work to be at the heart of our republic. That is the sort of hubris that I cannot let pass, although the lack of time prohibits me from writing at length about it as I would wish to do if conditions were more ideal.
Perhaps you imagine that your little rag is somehow of fundamental importance to the well-being of our nation. Let me disabuse you of this notion, which appears to come about because you have taken the journalistic propaganda of “All The President’s Men” too much to heart and think that it was you and others of your ilk who stood firm against an imperial presidency of Nixon and wish to do so again. There once was a time when I had at least a great deal of fondness for the Washington Post, enough to cite you as a worthwhile source from time to time . Unfortunately, your behavior in recent months has caused me to feel a great deal of resentment at your presence in my inbox even under the conditions of free messages, much less ones I would pay for. I wish to make it clear that I do not consider your product to be worth paying for, and I would probably feel somewhat dirty and corrupted if I allowed myself to be paid for the dubious privilege of reading the garbage that you produce, especially concerning political matters.
Let us count the ways that you have offended my sensibilities as a reader over the past few months. For one, there was the editorial cited below where a woman defended pedophilia as an acceptable option for women (although not for men). Obviously, this insults my sense of fair play and equity. If this were not enough, over the past few months I have been subjected to an endless polluted stream of leftist propaganda against our legitimately elected president. Since it does not appear as if your writers have any sense of restraint or dignity, nor any regard or respect for our proper authorities, it is hard for me to take your paper seriously. Given the strident tone of your missives, I do not believe your work presents any benefit to our republic, and would find you completely worthless and without use or value even if there should actually be anything wrong going on in the Trump White House to report on. Considering the way that you abuse him when there is no cause, you have no standing to be a bulwark of our freedoms even should there be reason for you to speak out against him. I say this to your shame.
So, you can rest assured that I will purchase anything from your newspaper, will not subscribe to your gossip rag, and will not in any way support your efforts as a newspaper. Should you change your course and offer something that at least approaches fairness and equity in your dealings, and should you change your approach so that you respect those whom God has placed in authority over us, my attitude may change. At the very least, instead of writing as I do, I will have a more favorable approach and may even consider you worth reading, if not worth paying for. For the moment, though, if you did not send me any more articles and ceased trying to present yourself as a worthwhile news source, I would greatly appreciate it. Even the time it takes to toss your e-articles into my e-mail account’s trash can is more time spent than your newspaper deserves at present.
Edge Induced Cohesion
 See, for example: