Democracy Dies in Darkness

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. NP here, I cancelled my subscription this morning.

[Anonymous]

Intended or not, this act serves to publicize the Post’s intended endorsement. Which kind of gets you there anyway, maybe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Intended or not, this act serves to publicize the Post’s intended endorsement. Which kind of gets you there anyway, maybe?

PP - the Post’s intended endorsement as distinct from Bezos’s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On the flip side, if WaPo can start reporting things objectively, I might actually subscribe.

But sticking with WSJ for now.

First, I’d be shocked if you actually read WSJ

Second, if you did, you’d see WSJ’s been spanking your boy pretty hard

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Intended or not, this act serves to publicize the Post’s intended endorsement. Which kind of gets you there anyway, maybe?

PP - the Post’s intended endorsement as distinct from Bezos’s.

Post wrote it. They say Bezos blocked it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Intended or not, this act serves to publicize the Post’s intended endorsement. Which kind of gets you there anyway, maybe?

PP - the Post’s intended endorsement as distinct from Bezos’s.

Post wrote it. They say Bezos blocked it.

+1. I hope one of them leaks the endorsement.

[Anonymous]

Me!

Have you all sufficiently excoriated Jeff Bezos and William Lewis on the WaPo comments pages related to the non-endorsement?

I don't think you have. Go there again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the flip side, if WaPo can start reporting things objectively, I might actually subscribe.

But sticking with WSJ for now.

First, I’d be shocked if you actually read WSJ

Second, if you did, you’d see WSJ’s been spanking your boy pretty hard

True. I subscribe to WSJ, NYT, and used to subscribe to WaPo before last night, and the WSJ newsroom is very much against Trump. It criticizes Trump's economic policies more than it did Biden's or now Harris'.

The coward editors of the WSJ don't like either candidate, but have done their best to stay polite vis-a-vis Trump - they have even gone out of their way to interview him in a very quick session and claim they didn't see dementia during the time they were with him (ha!). They picked their words very carefully for that synopsis . Some WSJ opinion columnists are MAGAs, of course, which is to be expected for iMpaRtiaLity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

by doing this Bezos did endorse Trump.

By doing this, Bezos showed Trump that Bezos will let Trump push Bezos around.

By doing this, he's showing he doesn't have the spine to own a national newspaper in the capital. He should sell it, the way councilmembers with early dementia resign.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The billionaires are killing democracy. Same thing happened with the LA Times.

Twitter thread from the LA Times owner's daughter. The non-endorsement was over Israel/Gaza, not Trump or taxes.

https://x.com/nikasoonshiong/status/1849671252052439145

and you believe this?

Do a believe that a billionaire is scared of his woke daughter and that drove policy? Yes, of course.

[Anonymous]

Cancelled last night.

[Anonymous]

I’m really torn, especially after seeing today’s opinion columns which very explicitly called out Bezos for overruling the editorial desk. If we all cancel, won’t it just lead to further deterioration of one of the few remaining decent papers in the country?
I used to love the NyTimes but they are getting really patchy. Science reporting is still okay but they have picked on Biden and Harris for really picayune things while giving Trump a total free pass on absolutely insane things he has said or done — it’s like their false paradigm of impartiality is to report equally on both sides even if one side is doing a lot more that should be called out and questioned.
And CNN is half click bait and half self-promotion. Their Ukraine coverage was phenomenal but the other stuff is often very superficial or self-promoting (like an article about tapper interviewing someone).

[Anonymous]

I dropped that turd if a paper in 2008. May have to re-up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m really torn, especially after seeing today’s opinion columns which very explicitly called out Bezos for overruling the editorial desk. If we all cancel, won’t it just lead to further deterioration of one of the few remaining decent papers in the country?
I used to love the NyTimes but they are getting really patchy. Science reporting is still okay but they have picked on Biden and Harris for really picayune things while giving Trump a total free pass on absolutely insane things he has said or done — it’s like their false paradigm of impartiality is to report equally on both sides even if one side is doing a lot more that should be called out and questioned.
And CNN is half click bait and half self-promotion. Their Ukraine coverage was phenomenal but the other stuff is often very superficial or self-promoting (like an article about tapper interviewing someone).

So your main objection is that they have called Harris and Biden out on “picayune” things. How dare they! I wonder what those picayune things could be? Biden’s dementia? The sale of his office through his son’s paintings? Targeting of political enemies through the legal system? Picayune indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the flip side, if WaPo can start reporting things objectively, I might actually subscribe.

But sticking with WSJ for now.

First, I’d be shocked if you actually read WSJ

Second, if you did, you’d see WSJ’s been spanking your boy pretty hard

True. I subscribe to WSJ, NYT, and used to subscribe to WaPo before last night, and the WSJ newsroom is very much against Trump. It criticizes Trump's economic policies more than it did Biden's or now Harris'.

The coward editors of the WSJ don't like either candidate, but have done their best to stay polite vis-a-vis Trump - they have even gone out of their way to interview him in a very quick session and claim they didn't see dementia during the time they were with him (ha!). They picked their words very carefully for that synopsis . Some WSJ opinion columnists are MAGAs, of course, which is to be expected for iMpaRtiaLity.

New gaslighting by the left is that Trump has dementia (because they are so pissed that they were exposed for defending Biden all these years). I think Trump and Harris should both sit for cognitive tests (something Biden refused to do) as well as an IQ test and release the results.