Democracy Dies in Darkness

[Anonymous]

They are not endorsing for president but are for senate and other races?🙄

[Anonymous]

I didn't cancel. Newspaper endorsements are totally worthless. All they do is reflect the opinion of the writer and those around him/her, with no background to explain why those opinions should have any weight whatsoever. They reflect partisan preferences with no pretense of objectivity or focus on the totality of the actual platforms involved.

Newspapers should be just that - sources of news, not of opinion by self-anointed arbitrators of favored public policies. Tell the readers what each candidate says, what their personal histories are, what their platforms are, and stop there. Readers don't need to be lectured to, or told who to vote for as if they are insufficiently discerning, intelligent, or mature enough to draw their own conclusions from the facts. One person's opinion should be irrelevant to anyone else. Newspaper opinions are the very definition of the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cancelled their WaPo subscription?

Just did. Appalling. Will they care? Who will this hurt? Certainly not Bezo’s. We are screwed. The nation and world is about to be run by 3 tyrannical (read between the lines) men.

Or PXT?

What?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn't cancel. Newspaper endorsements are totally worthless. All they do is reflect the opinion of the writer and those around him/her, with no background to explain why those opinions should have any weight whatsoever. They reflect partisan preferences with no pretense of objectivity or focus on the totality of the actual platforms involved.

Newspapers should be just that - sources of news, not of opinion by self-anointed arbitrators of favored public policies. Tell the readers what each candidate says, what their personal histories are, what their platforms are, and stop there. Readers don't need to be lectured to, or told who to vote for as if they are insufficiently discerning, intelligent, or mature enough to draw their own conclusions from the facts. One person's opinion should be irrelevant to anyone else. Newspaper opinions are the very definition of the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.

Do you not know the difference between the news and editorial sections? Totally different purposes. If the Post wanted to change its practice of endorsements, it should have announced that months ago, not a week before the election. And it shouldn’t have endorsed local races. This wasn’t a principled move. It was a self-interested move by the billionaire owner who substituted his fears and interests for the purpose of the newspaper. Shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn't cancel. Newspaper endorsements are totally worthless. All they do is reflect the opinion of the writer and those around him/her, with no background to explain why those opinions should have any weight whatsoever. They reflect partisan preferences with no pretense of objectivity or focus on the totality of the actual platforms involved.

Newspapers should be just that - sources of news, not of opinion by self-anointed arbitrators of favored public policies. Tell the readers what each candidate says, what their personal histories are, what their platforms are, and stop there. Readers don't need to be lectured to, or told who to vote for as if they are insufficiently discerning, intelligent, or mature enough to draw their own conclusions from the facts. One person's opinion should be irrelevant to anyone else. Newspaper opinions are the very definition of the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.

I would hae supported the Post's decision if it was made based on these ethical reasons. If they made it a year ago or whatever. But the decision was NOT made (ten days before the election!) based on reporting ethics. Bezos' business associates had just met with Trump. The decision was made because they feared financial repercussions if Trump is elected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DH and I discussed doing so but the fact is, we are probably in the top 5% of Amazon customers, so unless we break that habit first, there’s really no point in cancelling the Post.

Do some research, there are other options.

https://www.target.com/c/same-day-delivery/-/N-bswkz

[Anonymous]

I did. And while I'm not quite ready to cancel Amazon Prime, I did go to my subscriptions in prime and canceled all the extras. Next, definitely unplugging the Alexas throughout the house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cancelling WaPo won’t hurt Bezos. I’m not cancelling.

Is the point to hurt someone, or to make a personal statement about your values?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who cancelled their WaPo subscription?

Lol get a grip. Washington Post subscribers have to be a Harris +70 group at worst and all those people are still voting Harris. Candidly given the reputation of the media, an endorsement would probably hurt her with independents more than it would help anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't cancel. Newspaper endorsements are totally worthless. All they do is reflect the opinion of the writer and those around him/her, with no background to explain why those opinions should have any weight whatsoever. They reflect partisan preferences with no pretense of objectivity or focus on the totality of the actual platforms involved.

Newspapers should be just that - sources of news, not of opinion by self-anointed arbitrators of favored public policies. Tell the readers what each candidate says, what their personal histories are, what their platforms are, and stop there. Readers don't need to be lectured to, or told who to vote for as if they are insufficiently discerning, intelligent, or mature enough to draw their own conclusions from the facts. One person's opinion should be irrelevant to anyone else. Newspaper opinions are the very definition of the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.

I would hae supported the Post's decision if it was made based on these ethical reasons. If they made it a year ago or whatever. But the decision was NOT made (ten days before the election!) based on reporting ethics. Bezos' business associates had just met with Trump. The decision was made because they feared financial repercussions if Trump is elected.

Ins't that essentially an endorsement of Trump? Cratering to the threats of a fascist is the same as rolling out the red carpet for fascism. When you give the bully your lunch money, the bully wins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn't cancel. Newspaper endorsements are totally worthless. All they do is reflect the opinion of the writer and those around him/her, with no background to explain why those opinions should have any weight whatsoever. They reflect partisan preferences with no pretense of objectivity or focus on the totality of the actual platforms involved.

Newspapers should be just that - sources of news, not of opinion by self-anointed arbitrators of favored public policies. Tell the readers what each candidate says, what their personal histories are, what their platforms are, and stop there. Readers don't need to be lectured to, or told who to vote for as if they are insufficiently discerning, intelligent, or mature enough to draw their own conclusions from the facts. One person's opinion should be irrelevant to anyone else. Newspaper opinions are the very definition of the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.

You are just saying newspapers should delete the Opinion and Editorial pages.

[Anonymous]

Democracy dies in darkness, so we should abandon the newspaper? I think we all need to ween off of our Amazon dependency. It would actually be better for the local economy to get some retail stores back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cancelled their WaPo subscription?

Lol get a grip. Washington Post subscribers have to be a Harris +70 group at worst and all those people are still voting Harris. Candidly given the reputation of the media, an endorsement would probably hurt her with independents more than it would help anyway.

Who the readers are voting for is not the point. The horror of this situation is that an admittedly fascist candidate threatened the free press and the free press caved to the demand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think news organizations should endorse any politician. Shouldn’t the news agencies remain unbiased?

Sure. But to make this decision after the editorial was written in the 11th hour and when Bezos' business associates had recently met with Trump?

No this decision was certainly NOT made based on ethics whatsoever.

This

And cancel both Amazon and Washington post

Not that this will change amyones mind whose voting it won’t.

We have bigger problems the goal is to get to SCOTUS and remove all protections for election guardrails and throw the race to the house Don installed.

This is why down ballots we’re important

But no matter republicans coup wil come to fruition he wil be installed god help us and thank you mage idiots cult of stupidity you have no idea what you have done.

[Anonymous]

What if they had endorsed Trump? You all would have done the same thing.