For 35 years, The Washington Times has stood sentinel along the banks of the Potomac River, shining a bright light into all corners of the federal government.
Fearless reporting: Hard-hitting commentary and American values for 35 years ... and counting
Thirty-five years later, some would say the miracle is that The Washington Times has survived at all, let alone thrived both as a daily newspaper and — through WashingtonTimes.com — a powerful, conservative online presence, in an age when publications of the left, right and center have been falling by the wayside at an alarming rate.
By David R. Sands - The Washington Times
Starting a newspaper "is worth doing, and we make our first public appearance with a heady sense that we can do it. Our confidence rests in part on the zest and skills of the staff we have recruited. Just as importantly, it rests on the need we find expressed all over Washington for a new perspective on local, national and world events." Published October 19, 2017
More than 50 years later, 35 of it as a driving force at The Washington Times, Mr. Pruden's wry, witty, take-no-prisoners commentary, "Pruden on Politics," remains a popular fixture in print, online and by email for a legion of loyal Times readers.
It was a no-frills employment notice that went public 35 years ago, touting an original vision that sustained The Washington Times on its quest for profitability.
When I was hired in 1988 as a reporter for The Washington Times, I gave no thought to whether my children might someday work for the same newspaper.
No wisdom is regarded as conventional on the Commentary pages of The Washington Times, where a distinguished array of the nation's opinion leaders, commentators and scholars offer challenging, informed thoughts on a wide range of political, moral, economic and scientific issues.
On Sept. 14, 2001, George W. Bush was standing with New York City firefighters in the rubble of the World Trade Center, trying to address a crowd, when someone shouted that he couldn't hear what the president was saying.
For its Nov. 8, 2000, publication, The Washington Times tore up its front page four times to report that the presidential election was too close to call, that George W. Bush had won, that Al Gore had won (in an unpublished edition) and that, finally, the presidential election was too close to call.
The Washington Times devoted its pages to immigration coverage long before it was the raging national debate, giving policymakers in Washington and readers across the country an in-depth view of the conflict that has arisen between being a nation of immigrants and also a nation of laws.
Winning awards is not why reporters and editors do what they do. Getting the story (and getting it first) is the payoff. But it's nice to be recognized by colleagues for jobs well done.
Among the most consequential presidencies covered by The Washington Times were the administrations of the Republican father-and-son team of George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, who sometimes jokingly called each other "41" and "43" for their presidential places in history.
The Democrats tell me they tend to want to read what I've written because it gives them the best idea of where Republicans, particularly conservatives, want to go and what their strategy is.
The Washington Times distinguished itself in its coverage of Bill Clinton, even before he declared his presidential candidacy, by first reporting widespread accusations of marital infidelities by the then-governor in his home state of Arkansas.
Hillary Clinton has few rivals when it comes to dominating headlines in The Washington Times for the past 35 years, as the paper's reporters investigated and chronicled her many ups and downs.
The Washington Times stood out with its coverage of Barack Obama, reporting extensively on his meteoric rise from community organizer and state senator in Illinois to the 44th president of the United States.