Anonymous wrote:over 200k canceled subscriptions, that's somewhere between $15-24 million. Ouch.

How many journalists does that equal?

Fascinating that the liberal response here will ensure that progressive reporters for the most liberal national newspaper in the country will lose their jobs.

These folks would rather destroy this liberal news media company that’s the equivalent of the MSNBC of newspapers rather than countenance not even a contrary opinion but a neutral opinion.

I have a strong feeling that if Harris loses, the Democratic Party could very well destroy itself.

I mean you're not punishing him by unsubscribing you know that right, folks?

You got nothing v someone like him. He's got a F50 B2C, AWS B2B govt all wrapped up and the newspaper and grocery businesses. You really think he cares what we all think???!?

But I agree with his pragmatic approach. The difference between everyone and someone like him is that he uses his brain not heart to drive decisions. He's not always right but on this, it's logical, reasonable and from a business perspective to top it off, sensible. Not knowing the outcome of the election, staying neutral is what any sane business person would do. All of you complainers have no idea how to run a business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You take a bigger hit to your wallet ordering a salad from Sweet Green than he does losing 200K WaPo subscribers.

If he thought about the Post that way he could just make it free

He could but why would he? Most of them will be back soon enough. If not he'll just increase their Prime memberships. Probably both, tbh.

Anonymous wrote:You take a bigger hit to your wallet ordering a salad from Sweet Green than he does losing 200K WaPo subscribers.

If he thought about the Post that way he could just make it free

Anonymous wrote:You take a bigger hit to your wallet ordering a salad from Sweet Green than he does losing 200K WaPo subscribers.

Yes, but the hit to his ego is what hurts most.

You take a bigger hit to your wallet ordering a salad from Sweet Green than he does losing 200K WaPo subscribers.

Anonymous wrote:over 200k canceled subscriptions, that's somewhere between $15-24 million. Ouch.

Relative to his net worth that's the equivalent of someone earning $100K losing about $12.

Anonymous wrote:over 200k canceled subscriptions, that's somewhere between $15-24 million. Ouch.

10% of subscriptions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bezos is obviously greedy and wants that sweet government contract money if Trump wins.

What would you have said if he endorsed Trump?

It's the editorial page that makes the endorsement, not Bezos.

Not in this case. The editors had the Harris endorsement all set for print and Bezos spiked it.

over 200k canceled subscriptions, that's somewhere between $15-24 million. Ouch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bezos is obviously greedy and wants that sweet government contract money if Trump wins.

What would you have said if he endorsed Trump?

It's the editorial page that makes the endorsement, not Bezos.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The news is supposed to be objective and report on the news. You know, the facts.

So why would a newspaper abandon that and support a candidate , thus alienating 1/2 their base and calls into question all their news stories for obvious bias

The endorsements are part of the editorial and opinion pages. The post has endorsed candidates for decades.

And the Washington Post has always had opinions from both sides of the aisle. This was never a problem before. So why did Bezos suddenly decide it's a problem now?

Why did unions also?

Because everyone csn see the "get trump" mental illness in the democrat party. People are realuzing they lose credibility if they don't start backing away from the nonsense. DCUM excluded, of course.

Really? You're going with the "Trump Derangement Syndrome" defense?

Anonymous wrote:I think it makes total sense. They don’t like Trump. I think a bunch of people at WaPo simply assumed they would endorse Kamala but a lot of people don’t like Kamala and her policies are unpopular so they decided maybe they shouldn’t be endorsing either. Then maybe someone said that maybe they shouldn’t be doing this at all ever. And the libs went crazy. I got the post for 25 years. I stopped in about 2010 when it just went over the edge pro everything D and anti R. It went from lightly biased to heavily unabashedly biased. So I canceled because I want news, not opinion. Bezos maybe finally realized it’s time to steer it back to the middle or just shut it all down.

You just made a bunch of crap up and guessed what might have happened to fit your personal biases. No wonder you didn’t like the Post before, you have a problem with facts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The news is supposed to be objective and report on the news. You know, the facts.

So why would a newspaper abandon that and support a candidate , thus alienating 1/2 their base and calls into question all their news stories for obvious bias

The endorsements are part of the editorial and opinion pages. The post has endorsed candidates for decades.

And they continue to endorse down-ballot candidates, so there goes that excuse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The news is supposed to be objective and report on the news. You know, the facts.

So why would a newspaper abandon that and support a candidate , thus alienating 1/2 their base and calls into question all their news stories for obvious bias

The endorsements are part of the editorial and opinion pages. The post has endorsed candidates for decades.

And the Washington Post has always had opinions from both sides of the aisle. This was never a problem before. So why did Bezos suddenly decide it's a problem now?

Why did unions also?

Because everyone csn see the "get trump" mental illness in the democrat party. People are realuzing they lose credibility if they don't start backing away from the nonsense. DCUM excluded, of course.