Bezos: 'Presidential Endorsements Do Nothing'
- Reference: 0175351949
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/10/29/149207/bezos-presidential-endorsements-do-nothing
- Source link:
> "Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election," argues Jeff Bezos in [2]The Hard Truth: Americans Don't Trust the News Media , a WaPo op-ed defense of his decision as owner of The Washington Post to [3]end the newspaper's tradition of endorsing candidates for president .
>
> "No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, 'I'm going with Newspaper A's endorsement.' None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it's the right one. Eugene Meyer, publisher of The Washington Post from 1933 to 1946, thought the same, and he was right. By itself, declining to endorse presidential candidates is not enough to move us very far up the trust scale, but it's a meaningful step in the right direction. I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it. That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy."
[1] https://slashdot.org/~theodp
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/28/jeff-bezos-washington-post-trust/
[3] https://www.geekwire.com/2024/jeff-bezos-says-no-quid-pro-quo-of-any-kind-in-decision-to-end-washington-post-endorsements/
It's the right call (Score:3, Insightful)
No news outlet should be endorsing anyone.
Re:It's the right call (Score:5, Insightful)
Possibly the right call, at definitely the wrong time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know why it's the wrong time. Any time for this move is okay. Just do it.
I cannot find fault with this. I've never understood why ostensibly balanced media needs to opine or endorse. Let the entertainment hacks pipe up.
It's not the right call (Score:4, Insightful)
> I don't know why it's the wrong time. Any time for this move is okay. Just do it.
If Bezos were telling the truth — and clearly, he's not — he would see to it that the paper had no "opinion" section. You know, so it could make an honest attempt at reporting the news instead of trying to influence people by publishing the opinions and reasoning of various movers and shakers.
But he's not doing that. He's taking one action: keeping the stated and clear opinion of the paper's editorial crew (which has been openly stated outside the paper's environs as favoring Kamala Harris by the editorial crew) from being printed in the paper.
It's a completely transparent implementation of a pro-Trump move.
And as far as tradition goes, opinion sections have been, and remain, ubiquitous across almost every newspaper out there.
Bezos is a chump making a douche move.
Re: (Score:2)
>> I don't know why it's the wrong time. Any time for this move is okay. Just do it.
> If Bezos were telling the truth — and clearly, he's not — he would see to it that the paper had no "opinion" section. You know, so it could make an honest attempt at reporting the news instead of trying to influence people by publishing the opinions and reasoning of various movers and shakers.
The "Opinion" section is not a problem, opinion is not news. The problem is the "News" section is now "Opinion"
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know why it's the wrong time. Any time for this
move is okay. Just do it.
It is very much the wrong time to do it. Have you ever read any of those guidelines as to how judges (Who all-too-often ignore them. But that's another discussion.) are ethically (unfortunately, not legally) obligated to recuse themselves from a case not just if there is, in fact, a conflict of interest; but also in any case where there may even be the appearance of impropriety. This one of those cases, but in the ne
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about, “ostensibly balanced media”? The print media has never claimed to be balanced. The literal point of comment pages is to put forth points of view. You are confusing news reporting and opinion pages. And the commitment of news reporting is not to balance — it’s, ostensibly, to *truth*. You know, “speaking truth to power”; “without fear or favour”; etc.
Balance means “on the one hand, on the other hand”. Truth means “
Re: (Score:2)
Wonder why....
Re:It's the right call (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. If he announced this an year in advance, it would have been seen as policy, now it looks political.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is absolutely not the right call. A newspaper endorsement comes from the editorial board and it is expected. It tells everyone where the editorial board stands and what to expect from them.
By having the owner, who is obviously politically motivated to support Donald Trump, block the endorsement he has permanently and obviously tainted the newspapers reliability. Not that it wasn't already in question with all the sane washing of Donald Trump but now every single story we have to question how much of
Re: It's the right call (Score:3)
Wait, you say the newspaper should go beyond the news and endorse a candidate and then you say since they aren't they are a bunch of Trump propogandists? Do you even hear yourself?
Re: (Score:2)
If they're going to do 'independent' opinion pieces at all, they shouldn't just quietly cancel any that disagree with Bezos. If it's going to just be what Bezos wants to say, he should stand up and put his name on it rather than cowering behind a claim of "new policy".
Note that they have done "independent" opinion pieces for over a century.
Re: (Score:2)
I would prefer if they didn't. But if it's within a system where there is a multitude of differently opinionated outlets, it may be even more balanced over all that trying or pretending to be unbiased.
It's a matter of culture.
As long paper and soot is cheap and widely available, everyone can start their own newspaper and put his own opinion in it.
TV or radio stations? Only available to a few, so that should stay neutral. (or at least balanced)
Re: (Score:2)
> It is absolutely not the right call. A newspaper endorsement comes from the editorial board and it is expected. It tells everyone where the editorial board stands and what to expect from them.
Then endorsing Trump should be OK too, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Anytime but right after polls showing that your candidate may not be a safe bet.
Cutting your support when it is needed the most never looks good.
Re: (Score:2)
>> Possibly the right call, at definitely the wrong time.
> Just curious...when, exactly, would be the right time in your opinion?
Uh, not five minutes before the endorsement was going to press.
I know he's a busy guy and all, but I'm sure he had 30 seconds to write an 'I don't believe this paper should endorse a candidate' email at some point during the past six months. It's not like this whole 'presidential election' thing sneaked up on him...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah! Only religions should be telling people how to think and vote!
You're only saying that (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they were going to endorse Kamala. And it's stupidly and painfully obvious.
And of course they should. Newspapers have character and editorial boards. You expect them to endorse a candidate because you already know they have biases and you expect them to be clear about those biases.
By not endorsing Kamala the owner has made their biases clear to highly informed voters but more casual voters will be confused that's what he's counting on.
Just remember like George Carlin said it's a big cl
Re: (Score:2)
Opinion pieces have always been a part of the news.
Re: (Score:3)
> A newspaper's job is to give you facts
You may think so, but the value goes the other way. A newspaper does not exist to give *you* value - it exists to give value to its owners. Monetary, politically, and/or otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you just started reading the news or you just started thinking.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm forgoing my moderation points to respond to this nonsense.
Shame is a tool we as a society have used since the dawn of mankind. Having shame encourages people to do things like brushing their teeth and telling the truth. Donald Trump isn't media-savvy, our media just doesn't have the tools necessary to deal with someone who doesn't care whether or not people will believe them tomorrow.
It is stupidly, painfully obvious that Trump is a poor candidate for our nation's highest office. This is no longer a h
Re: (Score:2)
I fully believe Luckyo is a high earner who has a sucker wife who married him for stability or else he pays for a lot of hookers.
At the very least he'd get himself a russian mail order bride since he loves all things russia and badly wishes that putin would cross the finnish border and dominate him personally.
So unfortunately Luckyo is not as lonely as he deserves to be but we all know whatever the reasons for that are incredibly pathetic.
Re: (Score:2)
And so you along with the AC you responded to make his case.
So far off (Score:4, Interesting)
The founder of the world's largest bookstore (and the owner of the Washington Post), and no concept that the printed word is to educate and inform, not just influence.
Dirt bag explains his dirtbaggery. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's fear Trump will be elected and Bezos will become a target of his wrath.
Re: (Score:2)
A billionaire's morality is identical with his money. I have never seen any evidence that things are otherwise.
Re: (Score:3)
Please, Trump?
"Lock her up" Trump? "Give the FBI a beautiful new building" Trump?
Domestically, based on public information, setting yourself against Trump has very few consequences ( he's a pussy ). Bezos is right; trust in the media is at an all time low, and it's not because politicians attack it. It's because politicians are seen as MORE credible than the media. It's a very dangerous place to be, so trying to go back to the basics of actual unbiased reporting is a very good idea.
Whether that can succ
No WaPo endorsement (Score:2)
sure seems to have an effect on the future of the WaPo.
Brilliant timing Bezos. (Score:5, Insightful)
It does nothing to engender trust. When met with the choice of a black woman, or a self-worshipping asshole that's publicly promised to give you and your ilk massive tax breaks, you suddenly decide it's not the right time to endorse a candidate. How wonderfully modern of you. How illuminated. How "trust" worthy.
While on the surface, what he says makes sense, I get the feeling the timing of this isn't driven by a desire to appear more "unbiased." I'm sorry, it's absolutely a cop-out to step back now, when it feels like we're actually deciding between full-blown oligarch driven fascism, and "maybe this one won't bend us directly over the barrel." Not bias? Bias? Who cares. You're bowing out on playing a part in *NOT* being Trumpistan. Fuck you, Bezos.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's more trustworthy that saying "Hey look, the Nazi party did a function at Madison Square Garden. Trump is doing a thing at Madison Square Garden! See guys! See guys!!! he really is evil! See See!! !Look!"
Or - "Look LOOK he called Puerto Rico a trash pile!" Where he didn't... and the comedian was making a joke (which you need to know the subject material) referring to the problem of no landfills in Puerto Rico and trash actually, literally, is a big problem that the gov needs to fix.
Anyway, the demo
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Ah yes, "normies" are "waking up" and joining with a man who somehow has survived dozens of instances of misconduct that would have doomed any other candidate from either political party. Cheating on his pregnant wife with a porn star, undermining our democracy with claims of mass voter fraud he has never had an ounce of evidence for, cozying to dictators while alienating our allies; there is nothing "normal" about this man's political survival.
Heaven help us if the Trump cult ever becomes what's "normal" f
Re: (Score:2)
> Cheating on a pregnant wife - First, it's he said-she said... so BS (IMHO).
He paid her off to not say anything, we know that for a fact. One only has to look at all the allegations of sexual improprieties against him to know that he doesnt do that for just any allegation (although he has done it for others).
> How about getting a BJ in the oval office with an intern while PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? Irrelevant? Probably, but those in glass houses...
Except no one is defending that act here.
> Cozying to dictators - yeah, let's not have any dialogue with our rivals... you're an idiot.
I'm an idiot? EVERY US president maintains dialog with our rivals. That don't all lavish praise on them while alienating our traditional allies though.
> Undermining democracy with claims of voter fraud - Like what is being discovered in states with voter id?
> Voter fraud in Arizona: [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch [youtube.com]?... [youtube.com]
> Voter fraud in Virginia: [2]https://www.youtube.com/watch [youtube.com]?... [youtube.com]
> That Virginia is so effing corrupt as well.. ("Oh they checked on their drivers licenses they weren't citizens so we removed them from the voter rolls." SCREECH!! WINE!!! COMPLAIN!!! That's within 90 days of an election! You can't remove fraudulent voters. Technicality!!! Fraud must remain!" is the dem response.
I'm not going to bother with your Youtube videos because I know they're bunk. How do I
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch
Re: (Score:2)
> It's more trustworthy that saying "Hey look, the Nazi party did a function at Madison Square Garden. Trump is doing a thing at Madison Square Garden! See guys! See guys!!! he really is evil! See See!! !Look!"
> Or - "Look LOOK he called Puerto Rico a trash pile!" Where he didn't... and the comedian was making a joke (which you need to know the subject material) referring to the problem of no landfills in Puerto Rico and trash actually, literally, is a big problem that the gov needs to fix.
> Anyway, the democrat party is flailing around just looking for a nice smear-sounding topic. They are pathetic and lame at this point. The normies are starting to wake up and see through this BS.
If waking up means seeing Trump as anything other than the conman he's been since birth, then some of us don't want to wake up. Reality is calling to you. Your choice if you bother picking up.
What he wrote "makes sense" (Score:2)
because he didn't write it. Teams of psychologists wrote it specifically designed to "make sense".
They same guys they hire to make microtransactions and for pay horse armor "make sense" are the ones who got hired to make this B.S. "make sense".
Re:Brilliant timing Bezos. (Score:4, Insightful)
> When met with the choice of a black woman, or a self-worshipping asshole .
Does her being black give her some special virtue or qualification for office?
Re: (Score:2)
If you're black or just tired of seeing depressing displays of systematic racism; Yeah being black might help qualify her as a candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
A black president was responsible for the TEA Party (remember them?) which then morphed into MAGA. It literally broke their brains.
Re: (Score:3)
>> When met with the choice of a black woman, or a self-worshipping asshole .
> Does her being black give her some special virtue or qualification for office?
No, it shouldn't have any bearing at all, but there are a *LOT* of folks in this country absolutely losing their shit over the possible of electing another non-white to the office of president. I think it's idiotic that we have to tolerate such asinine behavior, but that's the joys of living in a free society. You're free to be a complete asshole. Just realize that I'm also free to see that those folks are being complete assholes.
Re: (Score:2)
don't forget the LA Times is also under fire for refusing to endorse. I do find it interesting that the same whiners mad that WAPO wont endorse a candidate are all too quick to condemn the asshats you read about that wear MAGA clothing to a polling station and then react like children. I am in full support of neutral polling stations. I am also in support of rules saying political signs need to come down on election day. I do not believe they do anything to intimidate or sway an election, but the anonymous
Re: (Score:3)
No, but since "news" has been nothing but opinion pieces and bullshit for generations now, it's absolutely aggravating that *THIS* is the moment the big names refuse to endorse anyone. When it actually feels like it matters.
Trump committing political suicide, repeatedly, got him elected once. I don't want to see it happen again.
Nothing fixes the stink of Bezos buying the Post (Score:3)
Cowardly trying to stay "neutral", just in case Putin's lapdog somehow does become the first US dicktator, doesn't help either. Only idiots think that newspapers are neutral. Journalistic integrity is not the same as having no opinion. The fact that fig leaf neutrality is passed off as integrity is another nail in the coffin of journalism.
Re: (Score:2)
“What makes a man turn neutral? A lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?”
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I sometimes wonder how much more insane people like this would be if current leadership would be Trump's, and situation was exactly the same it is today.
Consider lack of authorization to strike on Russian soil with long range fires, constant delays in aid, aid being delivered as very old hardware while being priced in modern replacements, etc. You'd think they believe Trump is in power with current policies and content of their screeching.
Re: (Score:2)
> constant delays in aid.
Yes, curious why that's happening. [1]https://www.gisreportsonline.c... [gisreportsonline.com]
[1] https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/republican-schism-ukraine/
He's not wrong (Score:2)
He's not wrong. The idea of a newspaper that endorses candidates runs counter to the principle that the newspaper delivers unbiased information. You can argue that an editorial board is an independent part of the newspaper that regularly publishes opinions, but that's always been a murky gray area of journalism.
However, the way he's couching this as a principled stand is laughable. The timing makes it obvious he is brown nosing Trump, plain and simple. America is rushing headlong into an autocracy and Bez
Re: (Score:3)
News isn't meant to be unbiased, it's meant to be objective. An objective viewpoint is, by necessity, biased towards reality . And politics is usually full of people who consider reality The Enemy.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess I don't see why, but I'm from a science background where the idea that you show your evidence and experimental results and stop there without providing a conclusion is just kinda stupid. Consulting the newspapers for their opinions on ballot measures used to be the most useful way to research such things broadly and efficiently, keeping their organizational biases in mind. Now that they've mostly all collapsed you have to depend on PACs or social networks that may or may not have anyone that knows
I cancelled. (Score:2)
I suspect that my cancellation will have no effect on Bezos, but I thought I'd give it a try.
The timing says everything that he doesn't.
Of course there's bias. (Score:2)
"What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence."
Right, non-bias and true independence is impossible.
So why are you even pretending it's possible?
That's lying and deceiving the public.
Democracy is dependent on trust.
So be honest. Especially when one candidate is proven to be utterly incompetent and unqualified to hold the role. (Not to mention old and weird.)
And Jeff, it's probably safe to say the reason only ONE publisher in WaPo's history suppor
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a goal towards which you strive. Errare human est.
Something that far left activists rail against because they fundamentally reject the concept of "discussion" and "argument". As far left ideology states that there is only power and combat between groups. So language is merely one of the tools of war in intersectional groups warfare. And it is their holy duty to make sure that as many such weapons are in the hands of their group, rather than any of the opposing ones.
Re: (Score:2)
No newspaper ever has had the goal of being unbiased. They all have opinion sections in which they publish biased pieces. You are pretending that opinion sections don’t exist and focusing only on reporting.
You are displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of how print journalism operates.
Re:Of course there's bias. (Score:4, Insightful)
> So be honest. Especially when one candidate is proven to be utterly incompetent and unqualified to hold the role. (Not to mention old and weird.)
Oh come on, that's not fair. Kamala is what, 60?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. It's such a dishonest idea that having a viewpoint is the same as lacking objectivity. Nobody is an emotionless god, and anyone who pretends to be just ends up a tool of the most extreme elements in a vain attempt to "balance" them out. Neutrality is incapable of objectivity, and objectivity will almost never arrive at a neutral position, because reality is "biased" toward the truth (yup, there's only one - that's the definition of the idea).
It depends (Score:4, Informative)
In the 19th century US newspapers generally didn't pretend to be politically neutral - there are still hundreds of US papers with the words "Democrat" or "Republican" in their name, from that era.
At the time each paper had a political viewpoint and was proud of it. In such cases political endorsements make perfect sense.
In the 20th century the press decided that it should be neutral and objective, and not take sides - just report the news.
If you're trying to do THAT, you should be consistent and not take sides - let your reader decide.
In the 21st century, most of the media seems to have decided that they're going to take sides but pretend that they're objective.
It's not really about that. (Score:2)
You don't express a viewpoint because you expect to be influential. You do it as an act of honesty, of community, and duty. You owe your community to hear the sum total of your understanding on the issues of the day, for its benefit and yours. Doesn't mean you're right, it just means you're doing your best.
The internet whiners have no credibility (Score:2, Insightful)
Jeff Bezos is awful (says everyone who buys tons of crap on Amazon). Elon Musk is awful (says everyone complaining about internet access in rural areas, or complaining about internal combustion automobiles). You only don't like them because they stopped pretending to be in your tribe. Now you look for any excuse to complain about them. Before that they could do no wrong. Heck even the women on the view used to fawn over Donald Trump before he was running for president. None of you have any credibility
Re: (Score:2)
> Elon Musk is awful (says everyone complaining about internet access in rural areas, or complaining about internal combustion automobiles).
Yeah, it's almost as if blatant antisemitism, the pushing of far right conspiracy theories, or any one of a number of negative social interactions Musk has had over the last decade [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. has ruined Musk's image for some.
The real question for me is why you think someone who pushes Replacement Theory [2]https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com] is a good guy we should all respect.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_of_Elon_Musk#:~:text=He%20has%20promoted%20conspiracy%20theories,conflicts%2C%20have%20received%20mixed%20reactions
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/21/great-replacement-theory-antisemitism-racism-rightwing-mainstream
Re: (Score:2)
It's always been worrying that these sorts of billionaires be lauded like this, whether it is Bezos and Musk or Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. The only ones that thought they could do no wrong are the ones continuing to say they could do no wrong (e.g. the Apu meme for Musk) and enjoy licking boots.
Re: (Score:2)
So strange it's election time and you guys are 10x more annoying than you've been all year all of a sudden.
Oh well I'm sure you're all real people posting honest good faith opinions on slashdot.
It's About Independence - Not the Endorsement (Score:5, Insightful)
If the editorial board of the WaPo had collectively decided to stop doing endorsements, I might disagree with that decision, but it wouldn't cause me to fundamentally question the integrity of the newspaper. The problem is that Jeff Bezos personally interfered with the editorial decision of the newspaper after specifically promising he would not interfere with its content when he bought the paper. Once Bezos is personally making editorial calls, then it's no longer a newspaper so much as Bezos' personal newsletter. There is no point in paying money for such a thing.
Imagine MLB saying No World Series winner in 24 (Score:2)
We read the news to (try) to get an unbiased view of events (the baseball game, the hurricane, the battle, ...). Bias exists, so we read multiple view points to get perspetive from many positions; and weigh their thoughts and ideas to form our own consensus (influenced by our bias, naturally) on the issue. If the WaPo's editorial board endorsed Trump, it would be a significant event, quite inconsistent with their reporting, and their editorials, which would cause many to read the body of the endorsement t
Then I have two follow-up questions to Bezos... (Score:3)
#1 Then why don't you just have them if they do no harm?
#2 Why did you have them vor 50 years if they do no good either?
And of course the still unanswered bonus question: Why haven't you noticed that until a week before the election?
It may indeed not matter if you do it or don't (*) but pulling out a few days before you may endorse the "wrong" candidate is showing fear.
(*) no newspaper would come out with an open endorsement over here, but that's a matter of culture and tradition
I got so upset about this that I stoipped twitter (Score:2)
Hey,
I got so upset by his decision that I called the amazing triumvirat of Bezos, Musk and Trump as fascists and wished death and destruction.
Well my twitter account got supended for inciting violence.
And now I am too lazy to jump through the hoops to get it unblocked.
I think that's a good thing, no?
If Linus endorsed a candidate (Score:3)
It would be news for nerds. Bezos, not so much.
But the opposite did something (Score:2)
Bezos may claim an endorsement might not do nothing, but blocking the paper from endorsing certainly did something - his paper lost 200,000 subscribers because his interference. So great job Jeff, you just financially imperiled your newspaper and the people working there! I'm sure if they get laid off you'll blame everyone but yourself.
And quite obviously endorsement does do something - it shows a news paper has balls to endorse a candidate and lay out the case for readers. Maybe there are only a small % si
Worth the read (Score:2)
Greenwald for all his flaws makes really good points on journalism. And he said it best in this thread:
[1]https://x.com/ggreenwald/statu... [x.com]
Also the actual op-ed itself is really worth reading, and it's very short. Worth a read, because all the far left activist brigading across this thread is trying to mischaracterize is at much as they can. It's linked in the OP.
[1] https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/1851284151015543090
Re: (Score:2)
Greenwald has turned bum-kisser to make bank. He's a waste of oxygen.
Also people who try to lionize him.
Re: (Score:2)
People are upset because Bezos made the decision to kill the endorsement, not the newspaper itself.
It's uncomfortable knowing you're cowardly... (Score:2)
...and you might say anything to anyone to tell yourself you're not. True, most of us are unimportant enough not to worry about being the target of Dear Leader's constant need to get even for terribly unfair affronts, like not everyone agreeing with him that he's the best little boy on Earth and does everything he tells them or suffers, badly, but I'd say that when a man has been elevated by a society to Mr Bezos' position—most of his property and status could not exist or exist securely in the Stat
Bezo's motives (Score:2)
To be fair, Trump has threatened to turn the state on people who he deems his enemies. Like people who say things he doesn't like, or fail to do what he wants. It's not the paper Bezos is worried about, it's everything else Trump might go after if he doesn't like what Bezo's paper has to say.
He cares more about his money than people (otherwise we wouldn't have so many horror stories about Amazon), which is why he didn't throw his wealth behind Kamala's campaign. Instead, he's protecting his money.
This is
He should have done it a year ago (Score:2)
Or some time when there were not major elections coming in the next few weeks or months.
It would have been more credible. Now, with the editorial staff claiming to be positive about Kamala, and Bezos pulling the plug on an official endorsement, it creates an image that he wants to limit positive news about Kamala, just when the elections are happening (early voting already started in some places, hasn't it?).
Just a view from a random person who is not an American, from halfway across the world who follows t
Amazon Post is an advetising circular (Score:2)
Bezos is correct that nobody trusts his fishwrap, and it is precisely because he wears his cowardice and fear on his sleeve. Losing 10% of your subscriber base they day after you lick the fascist boot makes that hard to deny.
His problem is he should not be running a paper. He's a unit shifter. He understands shipping boxes.
He doesn't understand democracy or collective action problems or messy, illogical tradeoffs that work.
He's a fucking coward in the way all of the super rich are. Political news services n
Re: (Score:2)
Historically, the real bias of a particular mainstream news outlet is generally in the CHOICE of stories that they run or don't run, rather than in the content or the language of the stories themselves. A written article on the Fox News website is largely indistinguishable from one about the same subject on the MSNBC website. But one of them posts only the stories that make the other side look bad, and the other only posts stories that cast the first side in a bad light.
So these news outlets aren't untrus
Re: (Score:2)
Elon Musk turned into straight Pussy Juice in the face of Putin Jr., so I suppose it's too much to ask that Jeff Bezos stay a man.
So far.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The lack of an endorsement has cost the WaPo 200,000 subscriptions at last count.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's nowhere near as big a hit compared to a spiteful Trump cancelling his lucrative government cloud contracts.
Re: (Score:2)
The team Trump goal is to be able to window unruly oligarchs like his sponsors do.
Re: (Score:3)
He could also cancel the servers needed to run Truth Social. That would probably require opening a door and letting the hamster bolt into the woods out back.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
(Also the hamster is a racist.)
Re: (Score:2)
damn! what kind of upbringing did that poor little guy have?
now I want to see a American History X and Hamtaro cross over remake.
Re: (Score:2)
The president, including Trump if elected, does not have the power to cancel contracts. The courts, R and D, would reverse that instantly.
I'm keeping my Post subscription (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been a subscriber since 1999. I've seen the Post go through a period of declining quality. Thing like spelling errors. It improved when Bezos first bought the paper, then started to decline again. After Biden got elected Bezos really started putting the screws to the paper. Instead of having good journalists reporting from a neutral stance they started packing the paper with "Opinion" articles. A lot of those are written by right-leaning people, and they're not held accountable for being truthful. It's not just that they put spin on their position, they just plain lie.
So, if they paper is getting so bad you might ask why I'm not dropping my subscription. It's because I think Bezos wants to kill the paper. He wants to push anyone who's objective out of the newsroom and he wants to turn it into another right-wing rag. Undermining independent journalism isn't a consequence, its the point.
So I'm keeping my subscription to the Post. Instead, I'm cutting Prime and anything connected to Amazon.
Re: (Score:2)
> Undermining independent journalism isn't a consequence, its the point.
Independent journalism is thoroughly undermined at a newspaper the minute an ultra-billionnaire buys that newspaper. Quite frankly, if I were you, I'd have cancelled my subcription to the WaPo as soon as I learned Bezos bought it.
Re: (Score:2)
Independent journalism basically does not exist. It was a nice run, and there were true believers for a while, but it's been dead since the Internet started to act as a major pathway for information dissemination.
Read everything as propaganda and get diametrically opposed coverage to compare notes. The points of agreement are the truth. The argumentation is propaganda. Use Occam's Razor liberally (ha) to choose between the propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be less worried about their spelling errors than their thinking errors.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the lack of endorsement. No one cares if a newspaper endorses someone or not.
It was backstabbing your endorsed candidate by retracing your already prepared endorsement in the last minute.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> The lack of an endorsement has cost the WaPo 200,000 subscriptions at last count.
If he truly wants a neutral newspaper that's trusted for bringing news without a bias, then that 200K is worth losing, like cutting a gangrenous limb off. Because those lost subscribers are mad that he's not pledged to their political team anymore, and their price of their patronage is the demand that the Post essentially be a mouthpiece for one political party.
Are things too far gone to win any kind of general trust? Probably. He should have done this as soon as he bought the paper. And Americans are so po
Re:So far.... (Score:5, Insightful)
But he obviously does *not* want that, as the WaPo, like every other newspaper, continues to print opinion pieces and editorials all the time, and indeed his own piece sharing his point of view was published in the comment pages.
Why people insist on treating obvious bad faith bullshit as good faith arguments is beyond me.
Re: (Score:2)
I cancelled my Prime subscription a few years ago and avoid ordering from Amazon at all when I can find alternatives.
Re: (Score:2)
> The lack of an endorsement has cost the WaPo 200,000 subscriptions at last count.
WaPo subscribers insist on strict conformity with the Democrat party and they demand that the Democrat candidate be endorsed no matter how crappy she is
Re: (Score:2)
...Thus showing that WaPo was actually a Democratic Party newsletter.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, STFU. Canadian acquaintances of mine assure me that most Democrats in office would fit quite comfortably... in their CONSERVATIVE TORY PARTY.
The mainstream media should have been calling TFG and the GOP (they are NOT "republicans") fascists long ago. And, for that matter, spent at least as much time on TFG's rapidly approaching senility. And before you say a word, as someone in their seventies who pays attention to their health, I know that his slurring words, and occasional lisping are signs of multipl
Re: (Score:2)
So, canceled your subscription already?
Re: (Score:2)
I look forward to them all moving to Canada, as disaffected losers for the last 250 years have done. Funny you mention Tories (Loyalists during the Revolution). Many/most went to Canada after the war. The process has continued, whether we talk about Civil War exiles to draft dodgers from various wars. It's the safety valve for the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump losers just go for (all the) cheezeburgers,
Re: (Score:2)
The part about a perception of bias is far from wrong. Why does a newspaper endorse a particular candidate? Isn't it enough that they report on all the candidates impartially and then let the readers make up their own minds? Sure, a portion of any group is composed of morons but they get to vote too.
Re: (Score:2)
"Far left activists" exist only in the limp-dicked imaginations of incel cuntservatives. Born-rich pussies covered in guns and security personnel tossing and turning in their sleep imagining black college freshmen coming for them. Bitch-ass losers.
You know who satisfies for your mother, and it ain't your father.
Re: (Score:2)
"Far left activists" exist only in the limp-dicked imaginations of incel cuntservatives.
Absolutely. Look to the words of that coward Vance when he tried to say how anyone who disagrees with his orange master is one of those "enemies from within", and then hurridly backtracked to say he only meant those "far left activists" who were poised to riot if Harris doesn't win. Funny how he never mentioned all those right-wing activists who tried to overthrow the government on January 6th through the use of v
Re: (Score:2)
Like Fox 'entertainment oppion\comment shows passing themselves of as news\political discourse?