Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think news organizations should endorse any politician. Shouldn’t the news agencies remain unbiased?

Sure. But to make this decision after the editorial was written in the 11th hour and when Bezos' business associates had recently met with Trump?

No this decision was certainly NOT made based on ethics whatsoever.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I didn't cancel. Newspaper endorsements are totally worthless. All they do is reflect the opinion of the writer and those around him/her, with no background to explain why those opinions should have any weight whatsoever. They reflect partisan preferences with no pretense of objectivity or focus on the totality of the actual platforms involved.

Newspapers should be just that - sources of news, not of opinion by self-anointed arbitrators of favored public policies. Tell the readers what each candidate says, what their personal histories are, what their platforms are, and stop there. Readers don't need to be lectured to, or told who to vote for as if they are insufficiently discerning, intelligent, or mature enough to draw their own conclusions from the facts. One person's opinion should be irrelevant to anyone else. Newspaper opinions are the very definition of the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn't cancel. Newspaper endorsements are totally worthless. All they do is reflect the opinion of the writer and those around him/her, with no background to explain why those opinions should have any weight whatsoever. They reflect partisan preferences with no pretense of objectivity or focus on the totality of the actual platforms involved.

Newspapers should be just that - sources of news, not of opinion by self-anointed arbitrators of favored public policies. Tell the readers what each candidate says, what their personal histories are, what their platforms are, and stop there. Readers don't need to be lectured to, or told who to vote for as if they are insufficiently discerning, intelligent, or mature enough to draw their own conclusions from the facts. One person's opinion should be irrelevant to anyone else. Newspaper opinions are the very definition of the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.

I would hae supported the Post's decision if it was made based on these ethical reasons. If they made it a year ago or whatever. But the decision was NOT made (ten days before the election!) based on reporting ethics. Bezos' business associates had just met with Trump. The decision was made because they feared financial repercussions if Trump is elected.

Anonymous wrote:Who cancelled their WaPo subscription?

Anonymous wrote:Cancelling WaPo won’t hurt Bezos. I’m not cancelling.

Anonymous wrote:DH and I discussed doing so but the fact is, we are probably in the top 5% of Amazon customers, so unless we break that habit first, there’s really no point in cancelling the Post.

Anonymous wrote:I didn't cancel. Newspaper endorsements are totally worthless. All they do is reflect the opinion of the writer and those around him/her, with no background to explain why those opinions should have any weight whatsoever. They reflect partisan preferences with no pretense of objectivity or focus on the totality of the actual platforms involved.

Newspapers should be just that - sources of news, not of opinion by self-anointed arbitrators of favored public policies. Tell the readers what each candidate says, what their personal histories are, what their platforms are, and stop there. Readers don't need to be lectured to, or told who to vote for as if they are insufficiently discerning, intelligent, or mature enough to draw their own conclusions from the facts. One person's opinion should be irrelevant to anyone else. Newspaper opinions are the very definition of the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.

Anonymous wrote:I didn't cancel. Newspaper endorsements are totally worthless. All they do is reflect the opinion of the writer and those around him/her, with no background to explain why those opinions should have any weight whatsoever. They reflect partisan preferences with no pretense of objectivity or focus on the totality of the actual platforms involved.

Newspapers should be just that - sources of news, not of opinion by self-anointed arbitrators of favored public policies. Tell the readers what each candidate says, what their personal histories are, what their platforms are, and stop there. Readers don't need to be lectured to, or told who to vote for as if they are insufficiently discerning, intelligent, or mature enough to draw their own conclusions from the facts. One person's opinion should be irrelevant to anyone else. Newspaper opinions are the very definition of the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who cancelled their WaPo subscription?

Just did. Appalling. Will they care? Who will this hurt? Certainly not Bezo’s. We are screwed. The nation and world is about to be run by 3 tyrannical (read between the lines) men.

Or PXT?