Everyone, please comment on Bezos' piece in WaPo!

[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.

If this was any story this is also not the right call. It’s begs what else he’s squashed or will? And why?

[Anonymous]

These billionaires go to tatters with any public pushback. It’s almost comical
.

[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?

That’s not how unbiased works

[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.

This is why you fail. Opinions like this. The WaPo is in a death spiral Bezos or not.

[Anonymous]

We dropped the paper years ago after Obama was in office and this paper thought he walked on water. DH and I are news junkies, especially political news, and would love to have a paper to read again at breakfast. I hope this is the beginning of more balanced reporting.

[Anonymous]

Just commented. It's a great piece. Concise, human, and cuts through the emotions running high over politics. He's right -- media should not endorse candidates, now or in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We dropped the paper years ago after Obama was in office and this paper thought he walked on water. DH and I are news junkies, especially political news, and would love to have a paper to read again at breakfast. I hope this is the beginning of more balanced reporting.

Are you also freaky billionaires? in that case, I guess you can listen to bezos because if you're a freaky billionaire, maybe Trump is the freak for you.

For the rest of us, the ones that the editorial board was addressing, Harris is the choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We dropped the paper years ago after Obama was in office and this paper thought he walked on water. DH and I are news junkies, especially political news, and would love to have a paper to read again at breakfast. I hope this is the beginning of more balanced reporting.

Are you also freaky billionaires? in that case, I guess you can listen to bezos because if you're a freaky billionaire, maybe Trump is the freak for you.

For the rest of us, the ones that the editorial board was addressing, Harris is the choice.

No. We’re just old folks who remember way back when the news was not so obviously biased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We dropped the paper years ago after Obama was in office and this paper thought he walked on water. DH and I are news junkies, especially political news, and would love to have a paper to read again at breakfast. I hope this is the beginning of more balanced reporting.

Are you also freaky billionaires? in that case, I guess you can listen to bezos because if you're a freaky billionaire, maybe Trump is the freak for you.

For the rest of us, the ones that the editorial board was addressing, Harris is the choice.

No. We’re just old folks who remember way back when the news was not so obviously biased.

Bezos stomped on his editorial page. The editorial page is supposed to have an opinion. that's its purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just commented. It's a great piece. Concise, human, and cuts through the emotions running high over politics. He's right -- media should not endorse candidates, now or in the future.

Then he should have spoken up before last week as the editorial board was set to issue its endorsement. He is terrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We dropped the paper years ago after Obama was in office and this paper thought he walked on water. DH and I are news junkies, especially political news, and would love to have a paper to read again at breakfast. I hope this is the beginning of more balanced reporting.

Are you also freaky billionaires? in that case, I guess you can listen to bezos because if you're a freaky billionaire, maybe Trump is the freak for you.

For the rest of us, the ones that the editorial board was addressing, Harris is the choice.

No. We’re just old folks who remember way back when the news was not so obviously biased.

Do you understand the meaning of editorial?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So the owner's decision cost the employees THEIR subscribers?

[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.

Pretty much my thoughts.

I think there is a compelling argument for the paper not to issue endorsements at all but that it cannot be made AFTER the endorsement has been drafted and right before a presidential election where one candidate expressed disturbing desires to abuse presidential power for his own ends on a near daily basis.

Like there is no way for Bezos to claim a principled stance here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Pretty much my thoughts.

I think there is a compelling argument for the paper not to issue endorsements at all but that it cannot be made AFTER the endorsement has been drafted and right before a presidential election where one candidate expressed disturbing desires to abuse presidential power for his own ends on a near daily basis.

Like there is no way for Bezos to claim a principled stance here.

But he had to try with some weasel worded nonsense. He should have kept his hands off of the editorial board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Pretty much my thoughts.

I think there is a compelling argument for the paper not to issue endorsements at all but that it cannot be made AFTER the endorsement has been drafted and right before a presidential election where one candidate expressed disturbing desires to abuse presidential power for his own ends on a near daily basis.

Like there is no way for Bezos to claim a principled stance here.

But he had to try with some weasel worded nonsense. He should have kept his hands off of the editorial board.

Billionaires cannot help themselves. They think they are the smartest people alive about every matter. It is funny to watch. He blew up his own paper.