Everyone, please comment on Bezos' piece in WaPo!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Best comment from Reddit:

“Losing 200,000 subs to appeal to people who do not read anything, ever, for any reason. What a f#cking donkey.”

This is how you know it was a quid pro quo and Bezos is full of crap. Those people Bezos is trying to supposedly attract will never read the WaPo.

Totally. Jeff Bezos is lame and thinks all of us subscribers are as stupid AF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best comment from Reddit:

“Losing 200,000 subs to appeal to people who do not read anything, ever, for any reason. What a f#cking donkey.”

This is how you know it was a quid pro quo and Bezos is full of crap. Those people Bezos is trying to supposedly attract will never read the WaPo.

Totally. Jeff Bezos is lame and thinks all of us subscribers are as stupid AF.

He's not wrong...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best comment from Reddit:

“Losing 200,000 subs to appeal to people who do not read anything, ever, for any reason. What a f#cking donkey.”

This is how you know it was a quid pro quo and Bezos is full of crap. Those people Bezos is trying to supposedly attract will never read the WaPo.

Totally. Jeff Bezos is lame and thinks all of us subscribers are as stupid AF.

He's not wrong...

The 200,000 who dumped their subscriptions aren't.

And Bezos needs to stop kidding himself. That 200,000 he lost represents 8% of his subscriber base - all gone in just a few days, as compared to only gaining 4000 new subscribers in the last year. Those 200,000 will not be easy to replace without making some very compelling changes to restore trust in the Washington Post and even then it could take him years to replace them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Best comment from Reddit:

“Losing 200,000 subs to appeal to people who do not read anything, ever, for any reason. What a f#cking donkey.”

This is how you know it was a quid pro quo and Bezos is full of crap. Those people Bezos is trying to supposedly attract will never read the WaPo.

Totally. Jeff Bezos is lame and thinks all of us subscribers are as stupid AF.

He's not wrong...

The 200,000 who dumped their subscriptions aren't.

And Bezos needs to stop kidding himself. That 200,000 he lost represents 8% of his subscriber base - all gone in just a few days, as compared to only gaining 4000 new subscribers in the last year. Those 200,000 will not be easy to replace without making some very compelling changes to restore trust in the Washington Post and even then it could take him years to replace them.

Buying WaPo was never about making money for Bezos to begin with. In any case, a considerable percentage of those lost subscribers will resume their subscriptions when all is said and done.

[Anonymous]

what the heck did the WAPO do to their comments section--you can only sort by most recent, not most liked anymore...what's the point of commenting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he makes great points that ring true to me in terms of bias of and trust in mass media, however the timing is a bit dubious. I don't plan to suddenly start reading wapo tomorrow.

-trump voter

And yet... Bezos thought he'd win you over with his middle school English essay!

He really should stick to cardboard boxes, that man. And he's entitled enough to say "we" when referring to journalists! The comments on his piece are at 6K+ and they're ripping him apart.

He owns WaPo. How is it entitled to say "we" when speaking on behalf of his company and employees?

I don’t think any of his employees particularly want him to be speaking on their behalf right now, after his decision cost them 8 percent (and rising) of their subscribers in 48 hours.

[Anonymous]

We dumped the WaPo a long time ago because it had become merely a left-wing mouthpiece. I find it funny that so many are throwing tantrums now - all because the paper won't endorse your favored candidate. Boo hoo. Bezos is absolutely right:

"Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. 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."

[Anonymous]

Bezos said the paper should not have announced its decision so close to the election and he denied that it was done to benefit Donald Trump — though he acknowledged that Dave Limp, the chief executive of Blue Origin, his aerospace company, met with the former president on the day of the newspaper’s announcement.

“There is no connection between it and our decision on presidential endorsements, and any suggestion otherwise is false,” he said.

The decision to end the paper’s tradition of endorsing candidates sparked a backlash in which several columnists resigned and over 200,000 readers canceled their subscriptions in protest, according to NPR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bezos said the paper should not have announced its decision so close to the election and he denied that it was done to benefit Donald Trump — though he acknowledged that Dave Limp, the chief executive of Blue Origin, his aerospace company, met with the former president on the day of the newspaper’s announcement.

“There is no connection between it and our decision on presidential endorsements, and any suggestion otherwise is false,” he said.

The decision to end the paper’s tradition of endorsing candidates sparked a backlash in which several columnists resigned and over 200,000 readers canceled their subscriptions in protest, according to NPR.

Oh I now see nothing wrong with what he did. I will be surprised when Bezos gets lucrative government contract to round up illegals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:wow! has there ever been a better indication of the BIAS in MSM than these reactions by WAPO journalists and WAPO readers?

clearly educated elites own WAPO and expect “their” type of reporting.

usually only pro-globalist, pro-immigration, and anti-worker columns.

confirmation of their exceptionalism and brilliance.

And contempt for US working class

And educated elites still have no idea

Read Fareed articles.

[Anonymous]

For me, the timing, and the fact that the board had their article ready and he squashed it, are the primary issues. If he really doesn’t believe an endorsement is impactful, then let the EB publish and then work with them on a reset. No matter was he says, it looks quite sketchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just came out an hour ago, his ridiculous non-excuse for shutting down endorsements a week before a very consequential election.

Gift article:
https://wapo.st/3NKRzHc

Considering that the Washington Post endorsed Alsobrooks for Senate and Eugene Vindman in Virginia, Bezos' looks like a fool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For me, the timing, and the fact that the board had their article ready and he squashed it, are the primary issues. If he really doesn’t believe an endorsement is impactful, then let the EB publish and then work with them on a reset. No matter was he says, it looks quite sketchy.

Particularly, in view of the fact that the Post endorsed Vindman in VA and Alsobooks in MD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is only compelling to the extent you believe it's true. I'm sure there was no "quid pro quo," but I also don't think for a second that a he's not thinking about the potential business consequences of a Harris endorsement under a Trump presidency.

Ultimately, though, to me, it's a bad call for the owner to override the editorial board regardless of why. It makes the Washington Post less trustworthy, not more, totally independent of anything to do with Trump.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully he can have some fox news and maybe daily wire reporter write for the post to balance out the left wing echo chamber. All of the reporters for wapo are far left look at their Twitter feeds

Double standard! Fox News certainly doesn’t or if they do they’re immediately lambasted as soon as they get off air