Anonymous
07/31/2024 17:53
Subject: Wash Post—new editor from WSJ!?
Damn! Good on them!
Anonymous
06/25/2024 13:05
Subject: Wash Post—new editor from WSJ!?
Anonymous wrote:The NYTimes has a vested interest in having ethical people run competitor newspapers. It's not a business decision, but rather about journalism as a whole. Respect for journalists is already very low for a wide swath of Americans.
Having a scumbag who hacks into private records or lies to witnesses to gain access to their information as editor of one of the largest news organizations in the country is just going to further polarize Americans and push them toward junk social media "news" and podcasts.
Gets it
Anonymous
06/25/2024 09:52
Subject: Wash Post—new editor from WSJ!?
The NYTimes has a vested interest in having ethical people run competitor newspapers. It's not a business decision, but rather about journalism as a whole. Respect for journalists is already very low for a wide swath of Americans.
Having a scumbag who hacks into private records or lies to witnesses to gain access to their information as editor of one of the largest news organizations in the country is just going to further polarize Americans and push them toward junk social media "news" and podcasts.
Having a scumbag who hacks into private records or lies to witnesses to gain access to their information as editor of one of the largest news organizations in the country is just going to further polarize Americans and push them toward junk social media "news" and podcasts.
Anonymous
06/25/2024 09:12
Subject: Wash Post—new editor from WSJ!?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Given what he did in the past in the UK, it wouldn't surprise me at all if corporate liability insurance did not want to cover WaPo with him at the helm. The guy is ethically-challenged and a walking lawsuit. I doubt he's learned the error of his ways given the lengths he went to try to silence the discussion.
The papers staff and editors going all in to undermine management is not going to end well for them in the end.
They sort of don’t have a choice — the Times is also breaking a lot of news about Lewis, the Post would look ridiculous if they didn’t report on him just because he’s their boss.
Where do you think they are getting their scoops from?
Why do you think a competitor would want to undermine a competitor?
The Times published a story yesterday about records at Scotland Yard, written by two reporters they sent to London to investigate — I don't think that came from anyone at the Post. And I also don't think the Post is really such a serious competitor to the Times anymore that the Times would go out of their way to write about their new publisher just to make them look bad.