WaPo - No endorsement for the Presidency
-
It’s an about AWS. AWS is a huge government contractor and has made heavy investments that a new executive could wipe out if he so chooses.
The Brad
-
I guess he regrets buying WaPo now. At the time it probably seemed like an easy way to posture as being on the right side of history, with the positive PR that brought. But now, when it comes time to make an actual sacrifice for political ideals, the ideals are kicked to the curb. What a shock.
Anybody who links WaPo articles going forward, is complicit in fascism.
Education is extremely important.
-
It’s an about AWS. AWS is a huge government contractor and has made heavy investments that a new executive could wipe out if he so chooses.
@LuFins-Dad said in WaPo - No endorsement for the Presidency:
It’s an about AWS.
Democracy dies in data centers.
-
I guess he regrets buying WaPo now. At the time it probably seemed like an easy way to posture as being on the right side of history, with the positive PR that brought. But now, when it comes time to make an actual sacrifice for political ideals, the ideals are kicked to the curb. What a shock.
Anybody who links WaPo articles going forward, is complicit in fascism.
@Horace said in WaPo - No endorsement for the Presidency:
Anybody who links WaPo articles going forward, is complicit in fascism.
I subscribed to the Washington Post for over 40 years.
For the last 5 years (2015-20) that I was a subscriber the front page had at least 1 or 2 anti-Trump stories every day.
That is what their readership wanted. I mostly just wanted local sports and business.
-
Kagan leaves...
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Hay, Jen!
-
I am really enjoying the meltdown over this. First, have any of the newspaper endorsements made a difference in the last 40 years? My guess is not on the presidential ticket. Possibly a few of the downballot stuff, but not the top of the ticket. Second, WaPo gave their endorsement by immediately posting a news story about how their endorsement of Kamala was hijacked by Bezos. Third, can there be any question based on their reporting on who they support? Fourth, the people complaining were already committed to their vote in 2021-2022, and probably well before. Mark Hamill, Olbermann, Stephen King, all of them can just mark down the D on their election ballots for the rest of their lives.
They are all bitching just because their personal wishes weren’t affirmed. Hilarious.
-
-
I have been enjoying Matt Taibbi- https://www.racket.news/p/note-on-the-washington-posts-non
Around this time last night I read the Levitsky/Ziblatt New York Times editorial about the “Fifth Choice” for stopping Trump, which read like a clarion call to ignore coming bad election news. On the heels of weeks of other catastrophizing editorials, it came as a shock.
Now word comes about stunning industry news of another sort. The Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post have declined to endorse either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump, which in the case of the Bezos Post especially reads like a decision to surrender to coming bad election news. The Post has been the tip of the anti-Trump spear for years, and with the Times led the movement to openly politicize journalism via its insufferably self-congratulating “Democracy Dies in Darkness” campaign, so bowing out of the open advocacy game with publisher William Lewis promising a return to the paper’s “roots” is beyond surprising. Editor-at-large Robert Kagan, who penned last year’s million-word “Calling All Hinckleys” editorial comparing Trump to Julius Caesar, resigned in protest, presumably to spend more time snuggling with spouse Victoria Nuland.
The 16,000 or so comments under the Lewis editorial so far reveal two things. Post readers prefer the more traditionally British double-L spelling of “cancelled.” Also, many readers noticed with chagrin the contrast with the Times piece:
ve heard so many crazy things in the last weeks about behind-the-scenes maneuvering in Washington that it’s been tough to know what to believe, but it’s clear we’re headed for some kind of historic confrontation. I have trouble believing institutional America will really reverse course after eight years of dystopian lunacy, but Bezos and the Post just changed something, probably over the passionate objections of 98% of staff. Whatever’s going on, it sure isn’t boring.
-
I think the government contract/Amazon Services contract probably weighed heavily in Bezos' decision making process.
But, allow me to dream a bit...What if...
What if the newspaper based in the nation's capitol actually decided to play it a bit more down the middle? Go back to the Who, What, When, Where and Why of reporting for most stories and try to present a robust comment section with differing viewpoints? Maybe do some investigative journalism on all things Federal government...Regardless of who occupies the Whitehouse or controls Congress?
Appeal to the broadest segment of Americans, the 60% in the middle of the electorate?
With the Amazon tie-in, make WaPo part of your Prime subscription. As people go back to work in their offices, maybe they start to talk about what WaPo published today, rather than what they read on X or watched on TikTok.
-
Woodward and Bernstein complain.
“We respect the traditional independence of the editorial page, but this decision 11 days out from the 2024 presidential election ignores the Washington Post’s own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald Trump poses to democracy,” the two told CNN’s Brian Stelter Friday.
Wow. Throw away your traditional (at least before 2000) independence because of what you perceive to be a threat.
Independence dies in incoherence.
