Let me give you an example of how pathetic the reporting has become. This is an interview from Columbia Journalism Review (http://www.cjr.org/q_and_a/washington_post_bezos_amazon_revo...):
CJR: So you think news consumers in the future will make a decision on which Hillary Clinton story to click on based on speed? If they see a number of options and their experience tells them that The Washington Post is faster, then they’re going to read that one?
SP: Yes. And we see that already. I don’t know if it’s a conscious choice. I think it’s more about not hesitating to click.
CJR: I can’t imagine that’s a popular view in the newsroom.
JM: Well, it doesn’t really change our editorial strategy in any way.
I'm an old-school journo and I found a number of things in this disturbing. One: Hillary is assumed to be the winner. Two: The WaPo is admittedly trying to brainwash their readers through site responsiveness. Three: the article should mention owner Jeff Bezos's large contracts with the intelligence community and the ramifications of possible influence there. But it doesn't.
In short, it's propaganda.