PieFedWashington Post cancellations hit 250,000 – 10% of subscribers
breakfastmtnwww.theguardian.com/media/2024/oct/29/washingto…
Deterioration of the Washington Post’s subscriber base continued on Tuesday, hours after its proprietor, Jeff Bezos, defended the decision to forgo formally endorsing a presidential candidate as part of an effort to restore trust in the media.
The publication has now shed 250,000 subscribers, or 10% of the 2.5 million customers it had before the decision was made public on Friday, according to the NPR reporter David Folkenflik.
A day earlier, 200,000 had left according to the same outlet.
The numbers are based on the number of cancellation emails that have been sent out, according to a source at the paper, though the subscriber dashboard is no longer viewable to employees.
81 Comments
Comments from other communities
Darkassassin07The numbers are based on the number of cancellation emails that have been sent out, according to a source at the paper, though the subscriber dashboard is no longer viewable to employees.
Bozos doesn't like you looking at how badly he fucked up.
Granbo's Holy HotrodDo Amazon next. I plan to let mine expire. Amazon video is trash.
I don't think I've ever watched anything from Amazon directly.
Seen lots of their content though :) 🏴☠️
Boxscape
I always get excited when I see the files labelled with AMZN, the quality is consistent
Even when I was a subscriber, I would just grab the torrent, much more enjoyable to watch with VLC than a browser
FartsWithAnAccent
OrbituaryLetting mine go. I kept it for Vox Machina, but I will acquire it other ways next season and support the team directly.
Yup, I'm not paying an extra $3/mo on top of what I pay for prime for no ads, I'll just not watch what's on your service. Not to mention, most of the filler movies/shows on all of these streaming services are garbage anyway. If it weren't for my wife, I would just have my Jellyfin server by itself.
If I lived anywhere near a city and not in the mountains, I wouldn't have prime either. It just saves too much time whereas my time is in short supply and I don't have it to make a 3 hour round trip run every few days.
JaymesRSTheir subscriber numbers have been absolutely decimated by Bezos’ decision.
It’s down 10% which is the literal definition of decimated!
Literally decimated would be “down to 10%” aka down 90% I think I was wrong
All you had to do was click the link and you would have found out that you are wrong.
seaQueueDecimation means killing 1/10th of a group or population.
It means removal of 1/10th. deci 1/10 matus remove. So yes decimation was the name of the Roman punishment where 1/10 of a group was killed. But it can be applied to any group of people or things.
CNN talks about WaPo getting a backlash for not endorsing, but says nothing about Bezos intervention, lol.
https://lite.cnn.com/2024/10/29/media/usa-today-gannett-newspapers-endorsement-president/index.html
That's weird. I know CNN is quite familiar with dipshits intervening in coverage, so they should be able to spot it. They had one fuckface bend over backwards to give Donald an hour in front of a friendly live audience with a milquetoast moderator who was able to do fuckall against the lies.
Was there any evidence that Bozos made that decision? We’re all ready to believe it but want it just one persons allegation or something?
merde alorsIt's sad how much this will hurt good people who work for the Washington Post and how little this will affect Bezos.
If you still work at the Post after all this time it's kind of on you. They've had years to find employment at outlets that aren't a direct mouthpiece for Bezos.
I'm not sure it's that simple. The job market isn't great right now, you're on a programming instance so I would think you would know that the job market is rough even for programmers right now.
Well now it's not, but Bezos bought the post like 10 years ago.
Well in the past 4 years we've had an unheard of in the modern age pandemic followed by way too many mass layoffs, so that's nearly half a decade where it wasn't so feasible to switch jobs.
Although yeah it's true, they could have left in the 6 years prior, but I'm also not sure how many opportunities they had elsewhere in general, especially without having to uproot their lives and relocate elsewhere.
I do find it hard to demonize the workers when the focus should be on those at the top.
The can cancel as well and work somewhere else.
Can’t imagine many news publications are offering competitive job offers.
Job hunting isn’t that great at the moment
Well, it's the price of not being dependent on billionaires.
On the other hand, if the hundreds of thousands of subscribers go to a some publication (I've seen propublica recommended earlier in the comments, for instance) they will be able to pay a decent salary to a bunch of those journalists.
On the one hand, I know that the newspaper had done this for decades and stopped now...
On the other hand: If a big German newspaper recommended voting a specific person, this would be a huge scandal...
We have only 2 major parties and one has been a criminal enterprise for 56 years
- Nixon Watergate
- Reagan: sold drugs to buy guns for guys Congress said not to buy guns for because they were mass murderers
- Bush Sr US: helped with above
- Bush Jr faked evidence for a war which killed half a million people and cost 6 trillion dollars also illegally tortured
- Trump do I even need to do this one?
At this point Trump wants to form militias to round up 25M people and drag them to concentration camps and turn the military loose on anyone who disagrees.
This includes 11M undocumented workers who almost all live law abiding lives and Americans who were born here from above who are by our constitution citizens regardless of the status of their parents.
He has publically called for violence, and end to our constitution, a new era where the dictator tells the government what the law is.
It is strange for any responsible party not to oppose essentially Hitler.
Opposing soneone is not unusual in Germany. Supporting one person or party is what does not happen here.
I'm not a fan of the orange one... Just telling about the German view on this..
Kind of a weird stance to find opposing someone fine but supporting someone bad. Not accusing anything, I just find that weird thinking.
If the one you oppose is classified as far right and you print facts about them or quotes in your newspaper, it's still something different than endorsing a specific party or person, IMO..
We also had good and bad ads for some parties, but when it comes to only what the writers think, endorsing a specific party is just not happening like in the USA...
With 2 parties supporting the other is the only way that you oppose the one.
The only way that you *effectively* oppose the other
You can always vote third party if you want to pay lip service while helping the candidate you dislike
Voting third party in a first past the post system with only 2 dominant parties not only throws away your vote. If your preference is Third party Harris Trump you are actually helping Trump win when you vote third party instead of the person who actually has a chance.
EunieThe comparison doesn't work. In the US it is common practice that a newspaper gives a recommendation.
Also the US has a two party system. Compare this to Germany's multi party system. If you are undecided between to options a recommendation might help. If you are undecided whether you should vote the Greens or SPD a newspaper recommending CDU doesn't help you at all.
While it is not illegal for a newspaper to give a recommendation in Germany, it would be a scandal indeed. But the only reason for this would be that they didn't do it before. People are just complaining about changes like in this case as well
Which drives the partisanisation of the media. Bozo is right about one thing: the trust in media is at an all time low in the US and trust is build through accurate and unbiased reporting. Endorsing politicians is biased as hell.
The newspapers repudiation of a fascist in dangerous times would hit that much harder had they not endorsed other politicians in less dangerous times.
So now it's damned if they do, damned if they don't... swallow that pill they must at some point. But it would have been an easier pill to swallow after the rule of fascism in the US had been averted.
It also would be easier to accept if they were not changing policy immediately before an election, especially one with such serious consequences
Fwiw, this was always the “op Ed” section, editorial opinion.
I do believe that most reputable news sources historically distinguished facts they reported on from their editors opinion. It’s worth the same as any other well-informed persons opinion.
Of course that also led to Fox “News” and a radically misinformed public, so it certainly went to hell
Exactly - I find the comments in this thread very confusing. A free and *impartial* press is one of the cornerstones of democracy.
I now understand a lot better why there is such a distrust in journalism in the US.
I now understand a lot better why there is such a distrust in journalism in the US.
Because Americans aren't smart enough to realize the difference between a news article and an opinion article?
SpiceDealerThe bigger question should be: why would anyone subscribe to Bezo's paywalled garden in the first place?
Chump change for Bozos. Hardly a scratch
And he doesn't give a shit. Subscribers don't matter, control of a well known paper that will push his interests does.
I daresay this is the outcome he hoped for. Suddenly there are a bunch of open editorial author seats to fill. Taking bets on those seats being filled by people who don't lean quite so far to the left.
And a significant loss in subscribers? That's just the principled people fleeing who weren't gonna buy his nonsense either way. The people who stick around are the ones who are okay with billionaire interference in their news source, and those are the people Bezos wants as subscribers.
I don't really understand. A news outlet shouldn't be engaging in bias.
So it's unethical and propaganda when one endorses your opponent and just as much so when one doesn't do the same thing for yours?
In other countries, we call that hypocrisy or a 'doible-standard'. I believe I've heard Americans say something similar as, "Rules for thee but not for me."
The only thing that should be done is reporting on the other news outlet breeching journalism ethics or influencing in an election, because that's the news here.
Newspapers have a long history of publishing editorials and opinion pieces. Newspapers are rarely, if ever, pure, objective news. Endorsements fall under the editorial content. They are an established tradition.
When the owner dictates that no endorsement should be made because it conflicts with his views, that’s a problem. It’s not the editors with domain knowledge making the call but the self-serving business-man doing it. And it’s not for the good of the paper, it’s for his business interests and personal ideology.
That is the problem.
Not even just that, if this decision had been made last January, this wouldn’t be news, but the fact that it was made in the last few days in the run up to the election means that no matter how altruistic their decision was, it’s gonna be viewed in the light of the current moment.
Every previous election for a long time wapo has endorsed a candidate. The only reason they aren't is because of the second richest man in the world told them not to.
1880 to 1968, no official endorsements for or against any presidential candidate
1972 anti-Republican endorsement
1976, 80, 84 pro-Democrat endorsements
1988 no endorsement
1992, 96, 00, 04, 08, 12, 16, 20 pro-Democrat endorsements
2024 no endorsement
This clown has done an insurrection, says he's allowed to kill political opponents, promises to be a dictator, says Haitians are eating cats. Among other things, that's nowhere near a comprehensive list. Any news outlet that is not explicitly saying "this is the worst choice for the country" is biased. It is an objective fact that Donald is the wrong choice.
This clown has done an insurrection, says he's allowed to kill political opponents, promises to be a dictator, says Haitians are eating cats. Among other things, that's nowhere near a comprehensive list.
It should have been over for him the moment he mocked disabled journalist Serge Kovaleski in November of 2015 in any reasonable society.
Some more links if anyone needs resources to share with people (don’t give up hope):
- Chronicling Trump’s 10 most egregious abuses of power | CNN Politics
- Trump Is the Worst President in History - The Atlantic
- And, if you’re feeling really motivated/need an extensive source: Donald Trump: 59 of the worst things Trump did during his presidency | indy100
Every news organisation is biased. The content they choose to emphasize, the time they spend on a subject, who they interview or what they say is all bias. How often they return to it or when it gets covered also show bias.
Bias in news is not automatically bad. Lying or false representation is. Somewhere in the recent past we swallowed some sort of pill making us think news agencies can't have a stance.
So freedom of speech really is just a cudgel the right uses against the left? It's not *really* something they believe in.
cakeistheanswerI believe not wanting to put the guy back in who did nothing as the Saudi's bone sawed one of your writers falls into; common sense.
Bozo thought his own op ed was more important than the journalism of his "editorial board", people who he presumably pays to write opinions. People who are journalists.
He thinks he's an astronaut and a journalist because he can buy rocket companies and papers, but he's a clown demonstrating his own lack of understanding of bias in plain English, his paper is worth but the circus music following him.
I think what I look for is not being unbiased, but being independent. i.e. no conflict of interests, no direct relation with any political entities, not vested in the success of either side. And WaPo has failed that.
And stop pretending both sides are equal. Endorsing Trump is unethical.
All journalism has bias, it's literally impossible to not have a bias. It's how the journalist corrects that bias that is important. But understanding that might require nuance that you don't yet have.
Uhh, stating that Kamala Harris would make a better President than Donald Trump is a factual statement, not a biased one.
There is no objective measure to assess the performance of a President where Trump would exceed Harris.
I don't disagree at all. Trump is an absolute madman, and it's amazing to me that he's even in the conversation for running for president.
But, facts need to be cited, always. If a newspaper endorses Harris and says she's a better candidate than Trump, they had better explain with evidence why this is the case. Not doing so would be just as biased, and one of the cornerstones of a Democratic campaign is truth.
Well, yeah. Presumably that's why WaPo had a whole editorial devoted to it, and not just one sentence that said "Harris will be a better President than Trump."
EleventhHourI don’t really understand. A news outlet shouldn’t be engaging in bias.
I don't really understand. A commenter shouldn't so obviously have bad faith takes on their profile.
Like everybody else I object to what Bezos did, but boycotting the paper isn't going to tangibly hurt him, financially or in any other way, and it certainly won't change his behavior. The only people affected will be staffers who get laid off or have their salaries cut because of lost revenue. But hey, at least the social justice angels get to feel good by satisfyingly lashing out, and that's what really counts, right? The fantasy that they're fighting for a better world.
Ecco the dolphinWhen the thing you enjoy and rely on is privately owned, the only way you can express your disappointment is to vote with your dollar.
Edit - the Post has always been too neolib for me to read regularly. I am not a subscriber
Who says it’s to hurt him? The man has billions and billions. If he lost nearly all his wealth he’d still be filthy rich. It’s about not consuming news that’s being blatantly influenced by people with power and money.
So do nothing and continue to financially support something you disagree with? Are you a cuck or something?
I believe freedom means everybody gets to have their own opinion, even people I don't agree with. We should buy things based on their qualities, not based on judging who makes them. Moral perfectionism is a self-serving delusion. But go ahead and polish your halo.
Freedom means you can cancel a subscription based on any arbitrary decision you chose. We should buy things based on our freedom to choose, if that means you chose based on quality that's great and makes sense. If you choose for any reason other than quality, that's great it's your money.
How can you not see the fallacy in your own argument?
If an employer used the same leverage on employees I'm pretty sure you would agree with me that it would be wrong. But for some reason you feel differently about doing it as a customer. I don't know how you can not see the fallacy in that.
I for one agree with besos.How tf is this a wrong thing to do ?
The press should not tell you to vote for someone. It should report news.
Sure it can shit on one person more than the other due to various circumstances. In case of this particular election it would probably be donald trump. Mostly beacuse its hard not to in his case. But the press itself should not endorse someone.
But even if they are biased they should be biased in articles they create so that you can at least blame the particular reporter ( because pepole are biased and you cant really avoid that ). Company itself should not endorse certain politiicians.
The only thing i think besos should do better is do it( and annouce ) after this election or somewhere between election cycles. That was a very poor timing on his part.
jeffwEditorial boards are independent from newsrooms. They publish all sorts of opinions. That’s the point of the op ed sections of new outlets.
Back when news agencies were trusted, it was very common to respect the opinion of the editorial board as a well considered well informed source. I may not agree with it but I’d know it to have a good argument. It was also always distinct from news. In an “Opinion” section.
Fuck bezos
He's getting exactly what he wanted; to corrupt and neuter another stronghold of journalistic integrity, and turn it into his propaganda network.
He doesn't care whether it makes money or not. He's already richer than god, makes more profit than its entire worth every single week, and if Trump wins his personal tax cuts will be in the tens of billions.
even so, these are people who are realizing it isn't a valuable publication tuning out because *this* isn't when he got what we wanted. he got that a while ago
Just like Elon and Twitter
To him, I’m sure it’s an acceptable loss.
If Amazon Prime and AWS cancellations hit a significant level over this, that would have more of an impact.
Yup, he'll lose more revenue than those 10% WaPo subscribers under Harris. If Harris raises Amazon's taxes half a percent, this loss would become rounding error. Bezos wants Trump to win and wants to be Trump's friend for his own financial gain.
What drives someone with as much as Bezos to *still* want the high score to keep going up? This motherfucker should have to spend a month in a tent city.
You don't become a billionaire by thinking of others. It's such a mind-boggling amount of hoarded wealth that most of us can't even properly comprehend it...
He also knows most companies won’t cancel their AWS
So not only has he quite literally decimated their readerbase but he's also made *every other newspaper* run the story that they were going to endorse Harris anyway, instead of likely just limiting that information to the handful of Washington Post subscribers that cared enough to check. Great quash, Jeff, you really shut that one down.
Direct your money towards better journalism.
I suggest ProPublica.
This is key. Follow journalists and editors who leave WaPo and support them wherever they go.
Otherwise this may just be playing into the hand of Bezos to cripple yet another outlet that speaks truth to power.
ProPublica does phenomenal work.
I have commented how that decision led me to cancel my WaPo subscription which then snowballed into cancellations of Audible, Kindle Unlimited, Prime Video (ad-less), Amazon Photos, etc. Today I was chatting with my wife and she has now discarded the idea of using Blue Origin's satellite based internet access over Starlink. That's fifteen mobile response units where Jeff's space junk won't be considered.
Isn't Starlink Musk's outfit?
Yes, and we are desperate to ditch it. The idea was to switch to
Blue OriginAmazon's Project Kuiper as soon as it became available. Now it's fucked if we do and fucked if we don't.That said, fourteen of the Starlink units are suspended until needed, which means no monthly payments.
EDIT: I mistakenly called the satellite project Blue Origin.
Totally fair. And there are definitely reasons to dislike Bezos but on the which of the two is worse... Going Musk over Bezos feels a little.like the folks claiming trump will be better for Palestineans. Bezos didn't let his paper endorse trump, Musk is full on bribing people, campaign rallying for trump etc.
But to each their own, like I said, plenty of reasons to dislike Bezos.
Yes, it is. It is very hard to escape having relations with capitalist conglomerates in most sectors, in some it is impossible. That is why having political control of the State is the only way of the working class to control the billionaires, if the economy side of society is not radically altered.
We need to go back to guilds. Imagine a worker owned and managed rocket guild
Blue Origin isn't planning any satellite internet projects.
There is Amazon's Project Kuiper, which aims to bring Starlink-like Internet using a constellation of 3,000 satellites, but currently they have zero satellites in orbit (and the two prototypes they launched were ULA launches).
If/when Kuiper matures, Bezos owns less of Amazon than Musk owns of SpaceX, so if your goal is to keep as little of your money out of these men's hands as you can, Kuiper might be the way to go.
Great information, thank you. My use of the Blue Origin name is my mistake. Regardless, the original goal was to ditch Starlink. Hopefully we will be able to do so.
Wait… your wife is ditching Kupier, which doesn’t exist yet, because of a single stunt Bezos pulled, but Starlink, run by the guy funding Trump’s election campaign, is still in the running?
Ditching the idea of transitioning to Kupier once available, yes. For now, most of the units are suspended (zero cost) until needed. My hope is that other options become available.
Oh man wait until you learn about Buc-ees
Bucees going into satellite internet? I'm lost.
The way they treat their employees. Zero breaks during an 8 hours shift, suing former employees, because of their owner, like the WaPo
Giant squirrel satellites with glowing red eyes staring down at Earth
It’s good to see the system working like it should for the free press for once; they made a terrible decision and they’re paying for it. Now, if we can just collectively turn our backs on all the disreputable sources and start promoting the reputable ones, we might fix a broken system.
A *little* like it should. Maybe it culminates in at least a temporary drop to the tune of 15-20%. Maybe $50 million dollars of lost revenue a year, assuming people stay pissed (and they frequently get over it, or some MAGA people decide to reward the outlets refusal to get behind Harris). Let's get super pessimistic and assume it totally tanks, and the first number I could find was about $600 million in annual revenue, so Bezos is out a bit over half a billion if this completely blows.
Just one of Trump's tantrums cost Bezos $10 *Billion* in revenue for Amazon. Burning the paper to the ground would be worth it to spare Bezos Trump's wrath moving forward.
I really wish his wife had gotten the WaPo in the divorce.
Finally some good fucking news.
Billionaires never do anything benevolent. I speculate Bezos is refused the endorsement in case Trump wins and holds a grudge.
Nah, Bezos wants Trump. Lower taxes, less regulation. He knows the backlash would be even worse if he forced an endorsement.
It really is all about the fuckin money.
This was a potential explanation as to why Bezos did that https://lemmy.haley.io/post/1058450
Do we really need an explanation as to why capitalists are okay with supporting fascists?
Yes, liberals would be democratic socialists if they understood.
Hopefully...
It was pretty much exactly the reasons I thought.
Note the other facet is not just the odds being close, but the consequences being different. If Trump wins, these people know he will be vindictive. In his first term he killed a $10 billion deal with Amazon due to WaPo's coverage and taking it out on Bezos at large. If Harris wins, then she's expected to be more proper, so kowtowing to Trump wouldn't have a downside. So bad behavior to a point is rewarded even in a good outcome, because the good behavior response doesn't call to be all pissy over this sort of thing.
Of course, would be mitigated if huge businesses chock full of ulterior motives didn't outright control big journalism outlets.
I forget the exact name of it, but there's a game theory problem adjacent to but not exactly the Prisoner's Dilemma. Everyone votes yes or no, and if yes wins, everyone loses $20, but everyone who voted no loses $200. If no wins, nothing happens.
This is basically a variation of that problem.
should be paired with Amazon Prime cancelation for the double punch
Besos wipes his ass with those 250K subscribers. What he needs is to be stripped of his wealth.
Sure he needs to be taxed into dust. But he doesn't own the WaPo because it's making him rich. He runs it because it's a propaganda machine for him.
He lost 10% of his subscribers, almost immediately, when he tried to use it that way openly. Which says:
Given those two propositions, he might just unload it, which would be nice for the rest of us.
Yeah, its just I can't believe I'm living in cyberpunk shitty guilded age 2.0
Nationalize Amazon. It is a marketplace now
Hell yeah
So not only do they loose the direct revenue from the subscribers, but because the readership has fallen significantly & publicly, advertisement revenue is going to fall, too, as the advertisers know the paper isn’t reaching as many readers.
bleed some more, bozo, and wapo will drop from 3rd to 4th (print circulation probably already has) largest, behind *usa today*
I can honestly count myself as one but also never using prime again either.
I don’t imagine they thought that this would literally decimate their subscriber base.*
Unless the former subscribers were executed, that's not the literal definition of decimate.
Historically (dating back to the 1600s) it could also be used for tithing or taxing one tenth of an amount too. Are you executing their money?
No, but WaPo is not literally paying a tithe or tax.
Sadly, that's chump change for him. 250k sub's at $120/yr comes out to $30M/yr. That's ~ 0.015% of his net wealth. Better than nothing though.
I believe that the main reason for people as wealthy as him to own newspapers is not the money, it's the influence. This does hurt that
In a way this is better than an endorsement would've been. Especially because it's acknowledged who the would-be recipient of the endorsement would have been.
https://static.wixstatic.com/media/5897e0_5cabc11d2cc34f059113cfb338411756mv2_d_1772_1311_s_2.jpg/v1/fill/w_980,h_725,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_auto/5897e0_5cabc11d2cc34f059113cfb338411756mv2_d_1772_1311_s_2.jpg
let's gooooo!!
That is an annual loss of $30 million.
ha ha
I gotta be honest... I don't think news papers should officially endorse a candidate. Report on the issues accurately and call it a day.
It reduces the perception of bias.
Editorial boards are strictly segregated from the objective reporters. Except for right wing media anyway.
True. I guess I can't read... Editorials are open season.
There is literally an entire section called "Opinion", where various columnists give their interpretation of the latest news.
And if they are giving opinions, they should give an opinion about who should be president.
Totally agree on the opinion section. I think if they want to they can opine on their candidate of choice, but I don't see it as a necessity.
Clearly I can't read....
They want to, but Bezos (who is not a journalist) is preventing them. That's the problem.
I have not been following this.
So, the headline says that the post is not endorsing a candidate.
And due to that, people are cancelling subscriptions.
Erm. Journalism should not be endorsing a candidate. Only reporting on events in an unbiased manner.
What am I missing?
The editorial board had written an unpublished endorsement for Harris, and they have been publicly endorsing presidents for the past ~50 years. This year they did not, and recently it was made public why: the billionaire owner, Jeff bezos, ordered them not to.
It is more about there being proof that the owner is having editorial control of the paper, than about any endorsement.
The owner controlling editorial decisions is to many, myself included who also cancelled my subscription, a violation of journalistic principles and not the product we are paying for.
I want to read a publication where skilled journalists can speak their mind, and that is no longer certain at the Washington Post, instead I must interpret their opinions as filtered through a billionaire's goals and opinions. I do not want to pay for that.
After decades of endorsing presidential candidates, this is the election they decided to stop doing so for.
You are missing literally all of the context. WaPo has endorsed in every presidential election since 1988. Suddenly, weeks before an incredibly contentious election, and right around the time Bezos-owned businesses met with Trump, this Bezos-owned publication decides to "return" to its "roots" (after three and a half decades). Even if it's not *actually* sinister (debatable, but we may never know), the appearance of impropriety is a serious issue and damages WaPo's credibility.
Newspapers report facts in one section and editorial opinions in a different section. They are clearly compartmentalized from each other. They are both useful. The editorial staff has a long history of making presidential endorsements. We're free to disagree with the endorsement, they are not telling us what to think, just giving us a perspective to consider among all the others we hear.
What the Post did is highly abnormal. It's not like the editorial staff decided out of nowhere to write up this endorsement. They did because it's an automatic thing they're expected to do before elections.
Think about watching a sports broadcast. There's typically two guys, one reporting play by play (facts) and the other adding color/analysis.
One candidate is a politician. One candidate is a fascist.
There’s a *very* clear dichotomy. And this is the first time in 50 years that they’re NOT making an endorsement. It’s very obviously an attempt by Bezos to avoid being targeted by Trump’s wrath if he wins.
Side note. What’s the point of having Fuck You money if you’re afraid to say “fuck you” to fascists?
I get what you’re saying, but Trump winning would imply a very explicit weaponization of the DoJ against Trump’s enemies, in a way that their money wouldn’t protect them.
There’s a pertinent, current example: Putin and Russia. Super rich oligarchs fall out of windows onto several bullets in the backs of their heads all the time in Moscow these days.
So, rather than using his considerable power and resources to prevent this tragic outcome, he’s electing to preemptively kiss ass and hope it’s enough to keep the eye of sauron aimed elsewhere? Fucking selfish coward. No matter how much Bezos could risk by standing up, ordinary people will always be at greater risk when they stand up. He can hire next level security, travel anywhere in the world and still be safer and more comfortable than any of us going to protests in any major city.
Turns out you don't become one of the world's richest men by *not* being a fucking selfish coward.
Oh, I agree. It’s a bitch-ass cowardly move.
It is extremely common for newspapers to support a candidate. Maybe even the norm. It certainly is for local politics.
That's great in theory, but this isn't the Election to not endorse a candidate. They've also been endorsing candidates for a while. So it's a clear signal of bezos tacit endorsement of trump.
Their editorial board has endorsed candidates for years. They were prepared to do so again, and then bezos met with trump and canceled the endorsement that was all ready to go. If they had stopped endorsements earlier, it wouldn't be notable.
Jesus christ ppl don't downvote someone for respectfully asking a question.
Nothing about it comes across as respectful. They openly admit they haven't been following the story and don't have context, and then put out an opinion on the story when *all the facts and context they needed were in the story this post is linking to.*
The fact that that opinion was essentially regurgitating Bezos' talking point just makes it worse.
I don’t think it was the question, I think it was this:
Which sounds like it’s arguing against freedom of the press.