WaPo no longer endorsing Presidential candidates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chicago Tribune has not endorsed Harris. Neither has Detroit Free Press nor Minnesota Star Tribune.

Four papers out of hundreds. *shrug*

They're prominent ones and one in a key swing state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Huge news, just after LA Times not endorsing anyone. Both decisions were made by the paper's owners.

I think this speaks more to the fact that the owners are scared of Trump's retribution if he wins. Better to keep your head down and be quiet.

Only endorsement that matters

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/grateful-dead-bob-weir-endorses-harris-walz-1235145588/

[Anonymous]

USA Today is not endorsing Harris.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Chicago Tribune has not endorsed Harris. Neither has Detroit Free Press nor Minnesota Star Tribune.

When the Star Tribune rebranded this summer as the Minnesota Star Tribune, that’s when they announced they would be doing no more endorsements going forward. It wasn’t like Bezos the slippery coward.

Billionaires are better insulated from the world than anyone else and they’re the biggest losers on the planet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Chicago Tribune has not endorsed Harris. Neither has Detroit Free Press nor Minnesota Star Tribune.

Four papers out of hundreds. *shrug*

They're prominent ones and one in a key swing state.

So sad they are no longer wanting to appear openly biased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bezos screwed up.

Wow, a whole 200k free trial to $5 digital subscriptions. How will Bezos ever recover from this! lol. That’s like the weekend gas bill on his $500M yacht.

Oligarchs don’t buy newspapers to make money. They buy them to control the news and curry favor with their political puppets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Are you even on the same planet as the rest of us? Upthread a poster was calling for the Washington Post to be more objective and hold candidates and political figures to the SAME standard rather than ignoring one side's craziness while overfocusing on every hiccup and sniffle from the other.

And here you walked away with "bias" and "their" type of reporting and "contempt for the US working class?" Your commentary is at a complete disjoint.

Or do you just post your opinionated drivel here without actually bothering to read what other posters are ACTUALLY saying?

I’m pretty sure that the Republican poop posters don’t engage with anything. They come, they spray their poop, they leave. Thinking isn’t one of their qualities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bezos screwed up.

Wow, a whole 200k free trial to $5 digital subscriptions. How will Bezos ever recover from this! lol. That’s like the weekend gas bill on his $500M yacht.

Oligarchs don’t buy newspapers to make money. They buy them to control the news and curry favor with their political puppets.

What a shame. A newspaper didn't validate their political view for once. How awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Huge news, just after LA Times not endorsing anyone. Both decisions were made by the paper's owners.

I think this speaks more to the fact that the owners are scared of Trump's retribution if he wins. Better to keep your head down and be quiet.

Why would The Washington Post need to keep its head down? Why would you think the Post fears Trump retribution. I’m not sure what a sitting President could do to a large newspaper, even if he/she wanted to, and here, there is absolutely NO track record of retribution. He didn’t go after Hillary after the 2016 election, despite her having classified information on her private server. He’s also stated repeatedly that there would be no retribution if elected, and has even hinted at pardoning Hunter Biden (which would help heal the divide in this country).

For years, the Post has been a rubber stamp for the Democrat candidate. Its endorsement carries no weight. It validates the Left, and is ignored by the Right. The Post did not endorse this time around because it is hoping to regain credibility as a fair and balanced news outlet. This is a first step, but it has a long way go. Maybe if it was fair and balanced, its subscriptions would double.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge news, just after LA Times not endorsing anyone. Both decisions were made by the paper's owners.

I think this speaks more to the fact that the owners are scared of Trump's retribution if he wins. Better to keep your head down and be quiet.

Why would The Washington Post need to keep its head down? Why would you think the Post fears Trump retribution. I’m not sure what a sitting President could do to a large newspaper, even if he/she wanted to, and here, there is absolutely NO track record of retribution. He didn’t go after Hillary after the 2016 election, despite her having classified information on her private server. He’s also stated repeatedly that there would be no retribution if elected, and has even hinted at pardoning Hunter Biden (which would help heal the divide in this country).

For years, the Post has been a rubber stamp for the Democrat candidate. Its endorsement carries no weight. It validates the Left, and is ignored by the Right. The Post did not endorse this time around because it is hoping to regain credibility as a fair and balanced news outlet. This is a first step, but it has a long way go. Maybe if it was fair and balanced, its subscriptions would double.

Bezos wants those government contracts for AWS, so doesn't want to rock the boat if Trump wins. He apparently knows Trump is vengeful, and counts on Democrats to be reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge news, just after LA Times not endorsing anyone. Both decisions were made by the paper's owners.

I think this speaks more to the fact that the owners are scared of Trump's retribution if he wins. Better to keep your head down and be quiet.

Why would The Washington Post need to keep its head down? Why would you think the Post fears Trump retribution. I’m not sure what a sitting President could do to a large newspaper, even if he/she wanted to, and here, there is absolutely NO track record of retribution. He didn’t go after Hillary after the 2016 election, despite her having classified information on her private server. He’s also stated repeatedly that there would be no retribution if elected, and has even hinted at pardoning Hunter Biden (which would help heal the divide in this country).

For years, the Post has been a rubber stamp for the Democrat candidate. Its endorsement carries no weight. It validates the Left, and is ignored by the Right. The Post did not endorse this time around because it is hoping to regain credibility as a fair and balanced news outlet. This is a first step, but it has a long way go. Maybe if it was fair and balanced, its subscriptions would double.

Bezos wants those government contracts for AWS, so doesn't want to rock the boat if Trump wins. He apparently knows Trump is vengeful, and counts on Democrats to be reasonable.

It takes balls to own a newspaper. Bezos is lacking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge news, just after LA Times not endorsing anyone. Both decisions were made by the paper's owners.

I think this speaks more to the fact that the owners are scared of Trump's retribution if he wins. Better to keep your head down and be quiet.

Why would The Washington Post need to keep its head down? Why would you think the Post fears Trump retribution. I’m not sure what a sitting President could do to a large newspaper, even if he/she wanted to, and here, there is absolutely NO track record of retribution. He didn’t go after Hillary after the 2016 election, despite her having classified information on her private server. He’s also stated repeatedly that there would be no retribution if elected, and has even hinted at pardoning Hunter Biden (which would help heal the divide in this country).

For years, the Post has been a rubber stamp for the Democrat candidate. Its endorsement carries no weight. It validates the Left, and is ignored by the Right. The Post did not endorse this time around because it is hoping to regain credibility as a fair and balanced news outlet. This is a first step, but it has a long way go. Maybe if it was fair and balanced, its subscriptions would double.

Biden will be pardoning Hunter before he leaves office. No reason not to do so.

[Anonymous]

Kamala would have won if Bezos had not blocked this endorsement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge news, just after LA Times not endorsing anyone. Both decisions were made by the paper's owners.

I think this speaks more to the fact that the owners are scared of Trump's retribution if he wins. Better to keep your head down and be quiet.

Why would The Washington Post need to keep its head down? Why would you think the Post fears Trump retribution. I’m not sure what a sitting President could do to a large newspaper, even if he/she wanted to, and here, there is absolutely NO track record of retribution. He didn’t go after Hillary after the 2016 election, despite her having classified information on her private server. He’s also stated repeatedly that there would be no retribution if elected, and has even hinted at pardoning Hunter Biden (which would help heal the divide in this country).

For years, the Post has been a rubber stamp for the Democrat candidate. Its endorsement carries no weight. It validates the Left, and is ignored by the Right. The Post did not endorse this time around because it is hoping to regain credibility as a fair and balanced news outlet. This is a first step, but it has a long way go. Maybe if it was fair and balanced, its subscriptions would double.

Bezos wants those government contracts for AWS, so doesn't want to rock the boat if Trump wins. He apparently knows Trump is vengeful, and counts on Democrats to be reasonable.

The gov does a lot with AWS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huge news, just after LA Times not endorsing anyone. Both decisions were made by the paper's owners.

I think this speaks more to the fact that the owners are scared of Trump's retribution if he wins. Better to keep your head down and be quiet.

Why would The Washington Post need to keep its head down? Why would you think the Post fears Trump retribution. I’m not sure what a sitting President could do to a large newspaper, even if he/she wanted to, and here, there is absolutely NO track record of retribution. He didn’t go after Hillary after the 2016 election, despite her having classified information on her private server. He’s also stated repeatedly that there would be no retribution if elected, and has even hinted at pardoning Hunter Biden (which would help heal the divide in this country).

For years, the Post has been a rubber stamp for the Democrat candidate. Its endorsement carries no weight. It validates the Left, and is ignored by the Right. The Post did not endorse this time around because it is hoping to regain credibility as a fair and balanced news outlet. This is a first step, but it has a long way go. Maybe if it was fair and balanced, its subscriptions would double.

Biden will be pardoning Hunter before he leaves office. No reason not to do so.

He should! I would.