Anonymous wrote:I read his reasoning and, honestly, it makes sense to me. The issue as I see it is that the timing is unfortunate.

Agree with both points.

I thought it was good and just subscribed MAGA

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I trust billionaires even less than the media

That's not saying much when billionaires own and control the media LOL.

And it’s is only acceptable for them to endorse your preferred candidate.

The editorial board can make a choice. They could have chosen Harris. They could have chosen Trump. The editorial board could have said we're not endorsing anyone. They did pick someone and the owner overrode them.

I think people assume everyone wants something. We barely see people do what is right just for the sake of it. I give Bezos major props and hope he finally changes that paper!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I trust billionaires even less than the media

That's not saying much when billionaires own and control the media LOL.

And it’s is only acceptable for them to endorse your preferred candidate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just came out an hour ago, his ridiculous non-excuse for shutting down endorsements a week before a very consequential election.

Gift article:
https://wapo.st/3NKRzHc

What he wrote was correct. No one trusts the media and media needs to stop being biased. It’s ridiculous. I am
Not a Trumper but am sick of the media including the Washington Post. Hopefully he will make some new hired at that paper.

i

+10000

There's an editorial opinion and then there's endorsement bias. I can't believe that people confuse the 2. I guarantee that those who cancelled subscriptions are pro Kamala. That means they are angry the paper is too objective and not more subjective in their praise of only one candidate - their candidate. But journalism done right, it must be fair reporting if both sides objectively. Endorsements are completely wrong by any paper for any candidate.

I'm not pro Trump but an Independent.

Anonymous wrote:Just came out an hour ago, his ridiculous non-excuse for shutting down endorsements a week before a very consequential election.

Gift article:
https://wapo.st/3NKRzHc

What he wrote was correct. No one trusts the media and media needs to stop being biased. It’s ridiculous. I am
Not a Trumper but am sick of the media including the Washington Post. Hopefully he will make some new hired at that paper.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read his reasoning and, honestly, it makes sense to me. The issue as I see it is that the timing is unfortunate.

Yes, he could've made this decision before the beginning of the Presidential campaign as a matter of policy. A week or two to go? Really?

If it couldn't have made it well in advance, he could have made it well after. the fact is he waited until they actually wrote their editorial to do it.

Bezos got his p**** grabbed and he let trump do it.

Anonymous wrote:I read his reasoning and, honestly, it makes sense to me. The issue as I see it is that the timing is unfortunate.

Yes, he could've made this decision before the beginning of the Presidential campaign as a matter of policy. A week or two to go? Really?

I read his reasoning and, honestly, it makes sense to me. The issue as I see it is that the timing is unfortunate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We dropped the paper years ago after Obama was in office and this paper thought he walked on water. DH and I are news junkies, especially political news, and would love to have a paper to read again at breakfast. I hope this is the beginning of more balanced reporting.

Are you also freaky billionaires? in that case, I guess you can listen to bezos because if you're a freaky billionaire, maybe Trump is the freak for you.

For the rest of us, the ones that the editorial board was addressing, Harris is the choice.

No. We’re just old folks who remember way back when the news was not so obviously biased.

Bezos stomped on his editorial page. The editorial page is supposed to have an opinion. that's its purpose.

No $hit Sherlock. Read my post carefully. I said biased reporting is why we dropped the paper. If not endorsing presidential candidates - especially when neither is worth endorsing - means more balanced reporting, that’s good news (pun intended).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We dropped the paper years ago after Obama was in office and this paper thought he walked on water. DH and I are news junkies, especially political news, and would love to have a paper to read again at breakfast. I hope this is the beginning of more balanced reporting.

Are you also freaky billionaires? in that case, I guess you can listen to bezos because if you're a freaky billionaire, maybe Trump is the freak for you.

For the rest of us, the ones that the editorial board was addressing, Harris is the choice.

No. We’re just old folks who remember way back when the news was not so obviously biased.

Do you understand the meaning of editorial?

Yes, I didn’t just fall out of a coconut tree.

Okay stop acting like you did.

If the paper wasn't biased we would see stories of Kamala word salad and her crazy multiple accents

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We dropped the paper years ago after Obama was in office and this paper thought he walked on water. DH and I are news junkies, especially political news, and would love to have a paper to read again at breakfast. I hope this is the beginning of more balanced reporting.

Are you also freaky billionaires? in that case, I guess you can listen to bezos because if you're a freaky billionaire, maybe Trump is the freak for you.

For the rest of us, the ones that the editorial board was addressing, Harris is the choice.

No. We’re just old folks who remember way back when the news was not so obviously biased.

Do you understand the meaning of editorial?

Yes, I didn’t just fall out of a coconut tree.

Okay stop acting like you did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We dropped the paper years ago after Obama was in office and this paper thought he walked on water. DH and I are news junkies, especially political news, and would love to have a paper to read again at breakfast. I hope this is the beginning of more balanced reporting.

Are you also freaky billionaires? in that case, I guess you can listen to bezos because if you're a freaky billionaire, maybe Trump is the freak for you.

For the rest of us, the ones that the editorial board was addressing, Harris is the choice.

No. We’re just old folks who remember way back when the news was not so obviously biased.

Do you understand the meaning of editorial?

Yes, I didn’t just fall out of a coconut tree.

Anonymous wrote:We dropped the paper years ago after Obama was in office and this paper thought he walked on water. DH and I are news junkies, especially political news, and would love to have a paper to read again at breakfast. I hope this is the beginning of more balanced reporting.

If you were truly news junkies, you would’ve kept the WaPo solely for defense and nat-sec reporting. Ya know, the reporting that blew the lid on Obama’s drone program.

But Republicans won’t rest until every news org is a mouthpiece of the GOP. Even the new head of the paper Will Lewis tried to kill WaPo’s own reporting on how he was involved in the UK phone hacking scandal!