Stockholm Syndrome - Anonymous employee New York Post Employee Review

3.0
17 July 2022
Anonymous employee
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Atmosphere (and people) can be freewheeling and "fun"; there is some downtime and it is accepted--you don't have to "look busy" if you aren't. Benefits were decent. The bunker mentality can give you a sense of "family," but it's largely a mirage. Out of sight, out of mind.

Cons

It takes leaving the Post to truly understand how toxic a lot of the experience is. People get away with abusive behavior that would be unacceptable anywhere else-- I witnessed (or experienced) screaming, insults, threats, and bigotry routinely. On the contributor side, a lot of poor writers have risen steadily due to brown nosing; a lot of good writers (and editors), especially anyone over age 30, have been marginalized or ultimately laid off. There is a direct-from-college (and cheap) employment track that has taken over several departments, and those writers are encouraged to be clickable while being unable to string together a decent sentence without copy editors rewriting them wholesale. Meanwhile, pay is incredibly unbalanced -- a handful of "stars" suck up all the money while everyone else is underpaid (or, again, laid off). Low pay is justified with outright lies like "I barely make more than you do " It is not, on its own, a living wage for NYC. There is, of course, also the ongoing embarrassment of working for a newspaper with low ethical standards and toxic politics. Some non-news/opinion staff can comfort themselves by saying "that's not my department," but it touches everyone eventually.

Explore other reviews about New York Post

5.0
15 Jan 2026
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Very flexible as it is hybrid work environment.

Cons

The company is very politically driven.

2.0
23 Nov 2025
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

My three years at the New York Post and Page Six made one thing very clear: hierarchy ruled everything. Opportunities, growth, and even pay often felt tied less to performance and more to who had the closest relationships with senior staff. Management was generally lenient, but direct communication was inconsistent at best.

Cons

In an effort to “bring back office culture,” the company implemented a return-to-office schedule, first three days a week, later four. Ironically, walking into the newsroom on most days meant stepping into near silence. Despite leadership insisting that in-office energy was essential, many higher-ups were rarely seen on Fridays, while those below them were expected to be there without exception. As for Page Six, it somehow manages to distance itself—at least stylistically—from the broader conservative, often sensational tone of its parent outlets. Yet even with that distance, it still leans heavily into flashy, click-driven coverage that can feel more like noise than news. It’s a strange blend: a brand that prides itself on entertainment reporting done with “integrity,” while publishing stories that rarely say much of substance beyond the headline. Culturally, the environment often felt like a real-life spin-off of Succession, complete with annual reminders that raises would be capped at around 2%—this while the parent conglomerate owns more than a hundred outlets across multiple countries. Still, that tiny bump did occasionally make a Trader Joe’s splurge feel possible, if the price was right. Overall, the journalism was mediocre, the work was manageable, and the job paid the bills—but the experience highlighted a workplace where hierarchy overshadowed merit, communication lagged, and morale was paper-thin.

2
See reviews by: Helpful|Rating|Date|All