<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[&#8220;Small and Under Weight Even By British Standards&#8221;]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s how the Washington Post <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/the-guardian-small-british-paper-makes-big-impact-with-nsa-stories/2013/07/01/1d7f29c8-e28c-11e2-a11e-c2ea876a8f30_story.html" target="_blank">described the Guardian</a>. Funny because both papers have a staff of just under 600, and then <a href="http://gawker.com/the-washington-post-is-a-bitter-jealous-little-newspap-645608016" target="_blank">there&#8217;s this</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>The Guardian&#8217;s global monthly unique visitors: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/select/facts-figures" target="_blank">23.2 million</a></p>
<p>The Washington Post&#8217;s monthly unique visitors: <a href="http://www.washingtonpostads.com/audience" target="_blank">17.2 million</a></p></blockquote>
<p>Do you think the WaPo even has the faintest clue how irrelevant it is?</p>
]]></html></oembed>