Democracy Dies in Darkness

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The billionaires are killing democracy. Same thing happened with the LA Times.

Twitter thread from the LA Times owner's daughter. The non-endorsement was over Israel/Gaza, not Trump or taxes.

https://x.com/nikasoonshiong/status/1849671252052439145

Or just PR spin when there was an outcry. People are so gullible. If this was the reason they would have stated it at the outset. Not a week later after a PR crisis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. And already looking at ways to replace Amazon. Target subscription same day delivery works for a lot of it and we have already found that Costco is better than Amazon subscribe and save for most bulk items.

Did this years ago. Target Same Day pickup has been useful too.

Good. Target's CEO is pro life. Thank you.

I don't care. I eat Chic Fil A. I have friends and family who are pro life.

I actually agree that news outlets could stop making endorsements.

But let me know when he pulls an editorial from a major newspaper endorsing a presidential candidate in the 11th hour because of a business deal, then has the audacity to pretend it is about journalistic integrity. We all know that integrity was not the actual reason for the decision. It was a lie and it occurred because of bowing to pressure from a lying cheating person who wants to override the constitution and speaks like a fascist.

This is overblown. At this point 99 percent of voters are decided. I don't know anyone who votes based on what a newspaper says. The Washington Post has been losing money and is no longer a powerful force in American politics. Social media has supplanted print media as the source of news for most people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The billionaires are killing democracy. Same thing happened with the LA Times.

Twitter thread from the LA Times owner's daughter. The non-endorsement was over Israel/Gaza, not Trump or taxes.

https://x.com/nikasoonshiong/status/1849671252052439145

Or just PR spin when there was an outcry. People are so gullible. If this was the reason they would have stated it at the outset. Not a week later after a PR crisis.

Yes it is impossible for a Newspaper to criticize Israel in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. And already looking at ways to replace Amazon. Target subscription same day delivery works for a lot of it and we have already found that Costco is better than Amazon subscribe and save for most bulk items.

Did this years ago. Target Same Day pickup has been useful too.

Good. Target's CEO is pro life. Thank you.

I don't care. I eat Chic Fil A. I have friends and family who are pro life.

I actually agree that news outlets could stop making endorsements.

But let me know when he pulls an editorial from a major newspaper endorsing a presidential candidate in the 11th hour because of a business deal, then has the audacity to pretend it is about journalistic integrity. We all know that integrity was not the actual reason for the decision. It was a lie and it occurred because of bowing to pressure from a lying cheating person who wants to override the constitution and speaks like a fascist.

This is overblown. At this point 99 percent of voters are decided. I don't know anyone who votes based on what a newspaper says. The Washington Post has been losing money and is no longer a powerful force in American politics. Social media has supplanted print media as the source of news for most people.

Setting aside that this is objectively horrifying...

It is not overblown to be disturbed that one of the richest men in the world, who owns a national newspaper, agreed to overrule his newspaper's editorial staff for a quid pro quo from the convicted felon who is running for president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. And already looking at ways to replace Amazon. Target subscription same day delivery works for a lot of it and we have already found that Costco is better than Amazon subscribe and save for most bulk items.

Did this years ago. Target Same Day pickup has been useful too.

Good. Target's CEO is pro life. Thank you.

I don't care. I eat Chic Fil A. I have friends and family who are pro life.

I actually agree that news outlets could stop making endorsements.

But let me know when he pulls an editorial from a major newspaper endorsing a presidential candidate in the 11th hour because of a business deal, then has the audacity to pretend it is about journalistic integrity. We all know that integrity was not the actual reason for the decision. It was a lie and it occurred because of bowing to pressure from a lying cheating person who wants to override the constitution and speaks like a fascist.

This is overblown. At this point 99 percent of voters are decided. I don't know anyone who votes based on what a newspaper says. The Washington Post has been losing money and is no longer a powerful force in American politics. Social media has supplanted print media as the source of news for most people.

Setting aside that this is objectively horrifying...

It is not overblown to be disturbed that one of the richest men in the world, who owns a national newspaper, agreed to overrule his newspaper's editorial staff for a quid pro quo from the convicted felon who is running for president.

Yes, this is the issue, not the endorsement itself. How can anyone read an article in the future and not be certain that Bezos tampered with it in some way? Or maybe a story never gets published? Sure, the odds are low but you can't say anymore that the odds are zero. And there goes any semblance of objectivity that WaPo had (regardless of your opinion of how much it had to begin with). I don't see how WaPo comes back from this ever unless Bezos sells.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. And already looking at ways to replace Amazon. Target subscription same day delivery works for a lot of it and we have already found that Costco is better than Amazon subscribe and save for most bulk items.

Did this years ago. Target Same Day pickup has been useful too.

Good. Target's CEO is pro life. Thank you.

I don't care. I eat Chic Fil A. I have friends and family who are pro life.

I actually agree that news outlets could stop making endorsements.

But let me know when he pulls an editorial from a major newspaper endorsing a presidential candidate in the 11th hour because of a business deal, then has the audacity to pretend it is about journalistic integrity. We all know that integrity was not the actual reason for the decision. It was a lie and it occurred because of bowing to pressure from a lying cheating person who wants to override the constitution and speaks like a fascist.

This is overblown. At this point 99 percent of voters are decided. I don't know anyone who votes based on what a newspaper says. The Washington Post has been losing money and is no longer a powerful force in American politics. Social media has supplanted print media as the source of news for most people.

Setting aside that this is objectively horrifying...

It is not overblown to be disturbed that one of the richest men in the world, who owns a national newspaper, agreed to overrule his newspaper's editorial staff for a quid pro quo from the convicted felon who is running for president.

Yes, this is the issue, not the endorsement itself. How can anyone read an article in the future and not be certain that Bezos tampered with it in some way? Or maybe a story never gets published? Sure, the odds are low but you can't say anymore that the odds are zero. And there goes any semblance of objectivity that WaPo had (regardless of your opinion of how much it had to begin with). I don't see how WaPo comes back from this ever unless Bezos sells.

It's not coming back. They have been laying people off and cutting benefits since before Bezos. The only way a paper survives is with subscriptions, and people just are not willing to pay for the current product.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. And already looking at ways to replace Amazon. Target subscription same day delivery works for a lot of it and we have already found that Costco is better than Amazon subscribe and save for most bulk items.

Did this years ago. Target Same Day pickup has been useful too.

Good. Target's CEO is pro life. Thank you.

I don't care. I eat Chic Fil A. I have friends and family who are pro life.

I actually agree that news outlets could stop making endorsements.

But let me know when he pulls an editorial from a major newspaper endorsing a presidential candidate in the 11th hour because of a business deal, then has the audacity to pretend it is about journalistic integrity. We all know that integrity was not the actual reason for the decision. It was a lie and it occurred because of bowing to pressure from a lying cheating person who wants to override the constitution and speaks like a fascist.

This is overblown. At this point 99 percent of voters are decided. I don't know anyone who votes based on what a newspaper says. The Washington Post has been losing money and is no longer a powerful force in American politics. Social media has supplanted print media as the source of news for most people.

Setting aside that this is objectively horrifying...

It is not overblown to be disturbed that one of the richest men in the world, who owns a national newspaper, agreed to overrule his newspaper's editorial staff for a quid pro quo from the convicted felon who is running for president.

Yes, this is the issue, not the endorsement itself. How can anyone read an article in the future and not be certain that Bezos tampered with it in some way? Or maybe a story never gets published? Sure, the odds are low but you can't say anymore that the odds are zero. And there goes any semblance of objectivity that WaPo had (regardless of your opinion of how much it had to begin with). I don't see how WaPo comes back from this ever unless Bezos sells.

It's not coming back. They have been laying people off and cutting benefits since before Bezos. The only way a paper survives is with subscriptions, and people just are not willing to pay for the current product.

Where do you think the "news" on social media comes from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. And already looking at ways to replace Amazon. Target subscription same day delivery works for a lot of it and we have already found that Costco is better than Amazon subscribe and save for most bulk items.

Did this years ago. Target Same Day pickup has been useful too.

Good. Target's CEO is pro life. Thank you.

I don't care. I eat Chic Fil A. I have friends and family who are pro life.

I actually agree that news outlets could stop making endorsements.

But let me know when he pulls an editorial from a major newspaper endorsing a presidential candidate in the 11th hour because of a business deal, then has the audacity to pretend it is about journalistic integrity. We all know that integrity was not the actual reason for the decision. It was a lie and it occurred because of bowing to pressure from a lying cheating person who wants to override the constitution and speaks like a fascist.

This is overblown. At this point 99 percent of voters are decided. I don't know anyone who votes based on what a newspaper says. The Washington Post has been losing money and is no longer a powerful force in American politics. Social media has supplanted print media as the source of news for most people.

Setting aside that this is objectively horrifying...

It is not overblown to be disturbed that one of the richest men in the world, who owns a national newspaper, agreed to overrule his newspaper's editorial staff for a quid pro quo from the convicted felon who is running for president.

Yes, this is the issue, not the endorsement itself. How can anyone read an article in the future and not be certain that Bezos tampered with it in some way? Or maybe a story never gets published? Sure, the odds are low but you can't say anymore that the odds are zero. And there goes any semblance of objectivity that WaPo had (regardless of your opinion of how much it had to begin with). I don't see how WaPo comes back from this ever unless Bezos sells.

It's not coming back. They have been laying people off and cutting benefits since before Bezos. The only way a paper survives is with subscriptions, and people just are not willing to pay for the current product.

Where do you think the "news" on social media comes from?

Well some of it is from from digital sources and some is from print sources. Just because it is linked on socials does not mean the organization makes money from it. If they were making money for every social click they would not need the pay wall that's currently on the WaPo site. The pay wall is specifically to force readers to pay for Wapo content. I don't know anyone who pays for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. And already looking at ways to replace Amazon. Target subscription same day delivery works for a lot of it and we have already found that Costco is better than Amazon subscribe and save for most bulk items.

Did this years ago. Target Same Day pickup has been useful too.

Good. Target's CEO is pro life. Thank you.

I don't care. I eat Chic Fil A. I have friends and family who are pro life.

I actually agree that news outlets could stop making endorsements.

But let me know when he pulls an editorial from a major newspaper endorsing a presidential candidate in the 11th hour because of a business deal, then has the audacity to pretend it is about journalistic integrity. We all know that integrity was not the actual reason for the decision. It was a lie and it occurred because of bowing to pressure from a lying cheating person who wants to override the constitution and speaks like a fascist.

This is overblown. At this point 99 percent of voters are decided. I don't know anyone who votes based on what a newspaper says. The Washington Post has been losing money and is no longer a powerful force in American politics. Social media has supplanted print media as the source of news for most people.

Setting aside that this is objectively horrifying...

It is not overblown to be disturbed that one of the richest men in the world, who owns a national newspaper, agreed to overrule his newspaper's editorial staff for a quid pro quo from the convicted felon who is running for president.

Yes, this is the issue, not the endorsement itself. How can anyone read an article in the future and not be certain that Bezos tampered with it in some way? Or maybe a story never gets published? Sure, the odds are low but you can't say anymore that the odds are zero. And there goes any semblance of objectivity that WaPo had (regardless of your opinion of how much it had to begin with). I don't see how WaPo comes back from this ever unless Bezos sells.

It's not coming back. They have been laying people off and cutting benefits since before Bezos. The only way a paper survives is with subscriptions, and people just are not willing to pay for the current product.

Where do you think the "news" on social media comes from?

Well some of it is from from digital sources and some is from print sources. Just because it is linked on socials does not mean the organization makes money from it. If they were making money for every social click they would not need the pay wall that's currently on the WaPo site. The pay wall is specifically to force readers to pay for Wapo content. I don't know anyone who pays for it.

I hate this idea that people have nowadays that we shouldn’t have to pay for journalism.

Before internet news, did you steal paper newspapers? I doubt it.

And yet you object to the idea that you have to pay to read journalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. And already looking at ways to replace Amazon. Target subscription same day delivery works for a lot of it and we have already found that Costco is better than Amazon subscribe and save for most bulk items.

Did this years ago. Target Same Day pickup has been useful too.

Good. Target's CEO is pro life. Thank you.

I don't care. I eat Chic Fil A. I have friends and family who are pro life.

I actually agree that news outlets could stop making endorsements.

But let me know when he pulls an editorial from a major newspaper endorsing a presidential candidate in the 11th hour because of a business deal, then has the audacity to pretend it is about journalistic integrity. We all know that integrity was not the actual reason for the decision. It was a lie and it occurred because of bowing to pressure from a lying cheating person who wants to override the constitution and speaks like a fascist.

This is overblown. At this point 99 percent of voters are decided. I don't know anyone who votes based on what a newspaper says. The Washington Post has been losing money and is no longer a powerful force in American politics. Social media has supplanted print media as the source of news for most people.

Setting aside that this is objectively horrifying...

It is not overblown to be disturbed that one of the richest men in the world, who owns a national newspaper, agreed to overrule his newspaper's editorial staff for a quid pro quo from the convicted felon who is running for president.

Yes, this is the issue, not the endorsement itself. How can anyone read an article in the future and not be certain that Bezos tampered with it in some way? Or maybe a story never gets published? Sure, the odds are low but you can't say anymore that the odds are zero. And there goes any semblance of objectivity that WaPo had (regardless of your opinion of how much it had to begin with). I don't see how WaPo comes back from this ever unless Bezos sells.

It's not coming back. They have been laying people off and cutting benefits since before Bezos. The only way a paper survives is with subscriptions, and people just are not willing to pay for the current product.

Where do you think the "news" on social media comes from?

Well some of it is from from digital sources and some is from print sources. Just because it is linked on socials does not mean the organization makes money from it. If they were making money for every social click they would not need the pay wall that's currently on the WaPo site. The pay wall is specifically to force readers to pay for Wapo content. I don't know anyone who pays for it.

And who pays for that? Somebody has to pay for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. And already looking at ways to replace Amazon. Target subscription same day delivery works for a lot of it and we have already found that Costco is better than Amazon subscribe and save for most bulk items.

Did this years ago. Target Same Day pickup has been useful too.

Good. Target's CEO is pro life. Thank you.

I don't care. I eat Chic Fil A. I have friends and family who are pro life.

I actually agree that news outlets could stop making endorsements.

But let me know when he pulls an editorial from a major newspaper endorsing a presidential candidate in the 11th hour because of a business deal, then has the audacity to pretend it is about journalistic integrity. We all know that integrity was not the actual reason for the decision. It was a lie and it occurred because of bowing to pressure from a lying cheating person who wants to override the constitution and speaks like a fascist.

This is overblown. At this point 99 percent of voters are decided. I don't know anyone who votes based on what a newspaper says. The Washington Post has been losing money and is no longer a powerful force in American politics. Social media has supplanted print media as the source of news for most people.

Setting aside that this is objectively horrifying...

It is not overblown to be disturbed that one of the richest men in the world, who owns a national newspaper, agreed to overrule his newspaper's editorial staff for a quid pro quo from the convicted felon who is running for president.

Yes, this is the issue, not the endorsement itself. How can anyone read an article in the future and not be certain that Bezos tampered with it in some way? Or maybe a story never gets published? Sure, the odds are low but you can't say anymore that the odds are zero. And there goes any semblance of objectivity that WaPo had (regardless of your opinion of how much it had to begin with). I don't see how WaPo comes back from this ever unless Bezos sells.

It's not coming back. They have been laying people off and cutting benefits since before Bezos. The only way a paper survives is with subscriptions, and people just are not willing to pay for the current product.

Where do you think the "news" on social media comes from?

Well some of it is from from digital sources and some is from print sources. Just because it is linked on socials does not mean the organization makes money from it. If they were making money for every social click they would not need the pay wall that's currently on the WaPo site. The pay wall is specifically to force readers to pay for Wapo content. I don't know anyone who pays for it.

And who pays for that? Somebody has to pay for it.

I don't know. Do you pay if you post links on Instagram or Facebook. I don't use social media so I am not sure whether you have to pay Wapo when you post their link.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. And already looking at ways to replace Amazon. Target subscription same day delivery works for a lot of it and we have already found that Costco is better than Amazon subscribe and save for most bulk items.

Did this years ago. Target Same Day pickup has been useful too.

Good. Target's CEO is pro life. Thank you.

I don't care. I eat Chic Fil A. I have friends and family who are pro life.

I actually agree that news outlets could stop making endorsements.

But let me know when he pulls an editorial from a major newspaper endorsing a presidential candidate in the 11th hour because of a business deal, then has the audacity to pretend it is about journalistic integrity. We all know that integrity was not the actual reason for the decision. It was a lie and it occurred because of bowing to pressure from a lying cheating person who wants to override the constitution and speaks like a fascist.

This is overblown. At this point 99 percent of voters are decided. I don't know anyone who votes based on what a newspaper says. The Washington Post has been losing money and is no longer a powerful force in American politics. Social media has supplanted print media as the source of news for most people.

Setting aside that this is objectively horrifying...

It is not overblown to be disturbed that one of the richest men in the world, who owns a national newspaper, agreed to overrule his newspaper's editorial staff for a quid pro quo from the convicted felon who is running for president.

Yes, this is the issue, not the endorsement itself. How can anyone read an article in the future and not be certain that Bezos tampered with it in some way? Or maybe a story never gets published? Sure, the odds are low but you can't say anymore that the odds are zero. And there goes any semblance of objectivity that WaPo had (regardless of your opinion of how much it had to begin with). I don't see how WaPo comes back from this ever unless Bezos sells.

It's not coming back. They have been laying people off and cutting benefits since before Bezos. The only way a paper survives is with subscriptions, and people just are not willing to pay for the current product.

Where do you think the "news" on social media comes from?

Well some of it is from from digital sources and some is from print sources. Just because it is linked on socials does not mean the organization makes money from it. If they were making money for every social click they would not need the pay wall that's currently on the WaPo site. The pay wall is specifically to force readers to pay for Wapo content. I don't know anyone who pays for it.

And who pays for that? Somebody has to pay for it.

I don't know. Do you pay if you post links on Instagram or Facebook. I don't use social media so I am not sure whether you have to pay Wapo when you post their link.

Who pays the people who report on the news?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yep. And already looking at ways to replace Amazon. Target subscription same day delivery works for a lot of it and we have already found that Costco is better than Amazon subscribe and save for most bulk items.

Did this years ago. Target Same Day pickup has been useful too.

Good. Target's CEO is pro life. Thank you.

I don't care. I eat Chic Fil A. I have friends and family who are pro life.

I actually agree that news outlets could stop making endorsements.

But let me know when he pulls an editorial from a major newspaper endorsing a presidential candidate in the 11th hour because of a business deal, then has the audacity to pretend it is about journalistic integrity. We all know that integrity was not the actual reason for the decision. It was a lie and it occurred because of bowing to pressure from a lying cheating person who wants to override the constitution and speaks like a fascist.

This is overblown. At this point 99 percent of voters are decided. I don't know anyone who votes based on what a newspaper says. The Washington Post has been losing money and is no longer a powerful force in American politics. Social media has supplanted print media as the source of news for most people.

Setting aside that this is objectively horrifying...

It is not overblown to be disturbed that one of the richest men in the world, who owns a national newspaper, agreed to overrule his newspaper's editorial staff for a quid pro quo from the convicted felon who is running for president.

Yes, this is the issue, not the endorsement itself. How can anyone read an article in the future and not be certain that Bezos tampered with it in some way? Or maybe a story never gets published? Sure, the odds are low but you can't say anymore that the odds are zero. And there goes any semblance of objectivity that WaPo had (regardless of your opinion of how much it had to begin with). I don't see how WaPo comes back from this ever unless Bezos sells.

It's not coming back. They have been laying people off and cutting benefits since before Bezos. The only way a paper survives is with subscriptions, and people just are not willing to pay for the current product.

Where do you think the "news" on social media comes from?

Well some of it is from from digital sources and some is from print sources. Just because it is linked on socials does not mean the organization makes money from it. If they were making money for every social click they would not need the pay wall that's currently on the WaPo site. The pay wall is specifically to force readers to pay for Wapo content. I don't know anyone who pays for it.

And who pays for that? Somebody has to pay for it.

I don't know. Do you pay if you post links on Instagram or Facebook. I don't use social media so I am not sure whether you have to pay Wapo when you post their link.

Who pays the people who report on the news?

My point is that I personally do not pay Wapo, don't subscribe and don't use the pay wall. I don't care who DOES pay them. It's clearly not enough or they would not be begging for pay on the pay wall and laying people off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cancelled WaPo. Will cancel Amazon and One Medical too and boycott Whole Foods while I am at it.

One Medical is owned by Bezos?

One Medical is owned by Amazon, which is owned by Bezos.

Amazon is a public company, you dope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cancelled WaPo. Will cancel Amazon and One Medical too and boycott Whole Foods while I am at it.

One Medical is owned by Bezos?

One Medical is owned by Amazon, which is owned by Bezos.

Amazon is a public company, you dope.

Still, I am going to teach my 401(k) plan a lesson.