Democracy Dies in Darkness

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cancelled the Post and Amazon Prime. Subscribed to another independent newspaper.

Where do you buy stuff from now? Are you sure that company does not have a minority shareholder who owns a newspaper that does not endorse candidates for political office? You need to go all in and DIE ON THIS HILL!

I buy off of Buy Nothing.

Lovely! A bit musty but you do you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cancelled the Post and Amazon Prime. Subscribed to another independent newspaper.

Where do you buy stuff from now? Are you sure that company does not have a minority shareholder who owns a newspaper that does not endorse candidates for political office? You need to go all in and DIE ON THIS HILL!

I buy off of Buy Nothing.

Lovely! A bit musty but you do you

Saves on the dump bills for the rest of us. How this is relevant beggars belief

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only people you hurt when you cancel your subscriptions are the journalists. Jeff Bezos won't know or care.

Actually, the people you hurt the most are your newspaper carriers. You know, the people who still make pretty good money by getting up at 4:00 every morning to deliver the print paper. But no one ever thinks about them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only people you hurt when you cancel your subscriptions are the journalists. Jeff Bezos won't know or care.

Actually, the people you hurt the most are your newspaper carriers. You know, the people who still make pretty good money by getting up at 4:00 every morning to deliver the print paper. But no one ever thinks about them.

People are cancelling their online subscriptions. I honestly doubt very many paper subscribers are cancelling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Canceling your subscription only hurts the writers at the post who barely survive layoffs. I’m not happy about the lack of an endorsement but on the whole, the Post is providing incredible and brave investigative reporting.

Do you think the same owner who quashed the endorsement will allow real investigative reporting?

He has allowed them to do real investigative reporting up to now, including about Amazon. It's possible he suddenly plans to change his whole approach here, but he was basically willing to let the National Enquirer publish his dick pics rather than try to influence coverage not that long ago. I agree that the explanation he's given for this stupid decision seems like utter garbage, but ... the other explanations also don't quite seem to fit, do they? Trump already retaliated against Amazon once when he was president, and Bezos only got richer after that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Canceling your subscription only hurts the writers at the post who barely survive layoffs. I’m not happy about the lack of an endorsement but on the whole, the Post is providing incredible and brave investigative reporting.

Do you think the same owner who quashed the endorsement will allow real investigative reporting?

He has allowed them to do real investigative reporting up to now, including about Amazon. It's possible he suddenly plans to change his whole approach here, but he was basically willing to let the National Enquirer publish his dick pics rather than try to influence coverage not that long ago. I agree that the explanation he's given for this stupid decision seems like utter garbage, but ... the other explanations also don't quite seem to fit, do they? Trump already retaliated against Amazon once when he was president, and Bezos only got richer after that.

There was a meeting between Trump officials and Blue Origin the day of the decision

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Canceling your subscription only hurts the writers at the post who barely survive layoffs. I’m not happy about the lack of an endorsement but on the whole, the Post is providing incredible and brave investigative reporting.

Do you think the same owner who quashed the endorsement will allow real investigative reporting?

He has allowed them to do real investigative reporting up to now, including about Amazon. It's possible he suddenly plans to change his whole approach here, but he was basically willing to let the National Enquirer publish his dick pics rather than try to influence coverage not that long ago. I agree that the explanation he's given for this stupid decision seems like utter garbage, but ... the other explanations also don't quite seem to fit, do they? Trump already retaliated against Amazon once when he was president, and Bezos only got richer after that.

There was a meeting between Trump officials and Blue Origin the day of the decision

Yes, and this proves... what, exactly? That meeting was definitely not arranged on the day it happened. (It also wasn't the day it was decided, just the day it was announced.) Blue Origin, a company that really only has one potential client, the U.S. government, was definitely going to be trying to meet with Trump no matter what. But do we think Trump is so easily swayed that killing ONE endorsement (an endorsement that almost no one would have bothered reading if they had actually published it) outweighs all the stuff the Post has already published about him? Such as ... all the stuff that led him to cancel Amazon's $10 billion contract with the Pentagon?

[Anonymous]

Is it possible he thinks she’s an idiot and not worthy of an endorsement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible he thinks she’s an idiot and not worthy of an endorsement?

Even if that were remotely possible instead of a maga talking point, it wouldn’t matter. He promised he wouldn’t interfere with editorial decisions when he bought the paper. And he interfered and substituted his whims (and economic interests) for professional journalists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible he thinks she’s an idiot and not worthy of an endorsement?

Even if that were remotely possible instead of a maga talking point, it wouldn’t matter. He promised he wouldn’t interfere with editorial decisions when he bought the paper. And he interfered and substituted his whims (and economic interests) for professional journalists.

I hear you. But the paper was hemorrhaging subscribers before he got there because of bad editorial decisions and biased reporting. And he’s given the reporters a long leash since he bought it. But at the end of the day he needs to keep the paper economically viable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible he thinks she’s an idiot and not worthy of an endorsement?

Even if that were remotely possible instead of a maga talking point, it wouldn’t matter. He promised he wouldn’t interfere with editorial decisions when he bought the paper. And he interfered and substituted his whims (and economic interests) for professional journalists.

I hear you. But the paper was hemorrhaging subscribers before he got there because of bad editorial decisions and biased reporting. And he’s given the reporters a long leash since he bought it. But at the end of the day he needs to keep the paper economically viable.

Oh please. Shes hardly so far out there as to make the paper become "unviable" due to an endorsement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible he thinks she’s an idiot and not worthy of an endorsement?

Even if that were remotely possible instead of a maga talking point, it wouldn’t matter. He promised he wouldn’t interfere with editorial decisions when he bought the paper. And he interfered and substituted his whims (and economic interests) for professional journalists.

I hear you. But the paper was hemorrhaging subscribers before he got there because of bad editorial decisions and biased reporting. And he’s given the reporters a long leash since he bought it. But at the end of the day he needs to keep the paper economically viable.

Does he? Why does he need to do that? It lost $100 million a couple of years ago. He's worth $200 billion. He could afford to subsidize those kinds of losses for a long, long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible he thinks she’s an idiot and not worthy of an endorsement?

Even if that were remotely possible instead of a maga talking point, it wouldn’t matter. He promised he wouldn’t interfere with editorial decisions when he bought the paper. And he interfered and substituted his whims (and economic interests) for professional journalists.

We don't really know anything about why he stepped in here -- he hasn't bothered to say anything at all about it. Traditionally, editorials (and specifically endorsements) are exactly the kind of thing where owners were within bounds to interfere. I'll be more worried when it comes out he's done something to screw with the news coverage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it possible he thinks she’s an idiot and not worthy of an endorsement?

Even if that were remotely possible instead of a maga talking point, it wouldn’t matter. He promised he wouldn’t interfere with editorial decisions when he bought the paper. And he interfered and substituted his whims (and economic interests) for professional journalists.

I hear you. But the paper was hemorrhaging subscribers before he got there because of bad editorial decisions and biased reporting. And he’s given the reporters a long leash since he bought it. But at the end of the day he needs to keep the paper economically viable.

No, he doesn't need to do that. He is the second richest person in the world. He has a net worth of $211 billion. If he could somehow turn that into cash to give away to every human being on the planet, it would be $26 per person.