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.
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).
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?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:by doing this Bezos did endorse Trump.Anonymous wrote:What if they had endorsed Trump? You all would have done the same thing.
By doing this, Bezos showed Trump that Bezos will let Trump push Bezos around.
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
. Some WSJ opinion columnists are MAGAs, of course, which is to be expected for iMpaRtiaLity.
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.
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.
Anonymous wrote:On the flip side, if WaPo can start reporting things objectively, I might actually subscribe.
But sticking with WSJ for now.
Anonymous wrote:Intended or not, this act serves to publicize the Post’s intended endorsement. Which kind of gets you there anyway, maybe?
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.