Anonymous wrote:Self-serving twaddle. Bezos simply didn't want to get on Trump's bad side and tried to split the baby.

We, as consumers of news, get what we tolerate, especially in this era of corporate media. I cancelled, after having read the paper all my life.

That's exactly what it looks like. Bezos wanting to avoid Trump's wrath. That is no way for the media to operate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The post had 2.5 million subscribers. Wonder what that number is now? Bezos will pull a Musk and increase that number.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/28/nx-s1-5168416/washington-post-bezos-endorsement-president-cancellations-resignations

Over 200K or close to 10% of the Post's subscribers have cancelled their subscriptions so far.

Blue-anon dweebs. Not worth keeping.

Blue anon is not a thing outside of the RWNJ echo chamber.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Self-serving twaddle. Bezos simply didn't want to get on Trump's bad side and tried to split the baby.

We, as consumers of news, get what we tolerate, especially in this era of corporate media. I cancelled, after having read the paper all my life.

Cancellation is counterproductive.

Unless, of course, you want Fox News/CNN style "journalism" to capture a larger market share. Talk about "twaddle".

WaPo is wildly imperfect. It's also among the very best daily reporting available.

I loathe Trump and I will absolutely, positively continue to subscribe to the Post.

WaPo does have good reporting and has had critical coverage of Democrats as well as Republicans. But this was clearly a major miscalculation by Bezos, with tremendously bad optics. They should have made that decision and made it clear early in the cycle, not days before the election. Also, it does seem like WaPo has not been entirely balanced - they went overboard regarding Biden's lousy debate performance while pulling their punches on Trump's consistently bizarre rally performances and that is also not reasonable or defensible. I stand by my assessment that if the Washington Post wants to lead the way, it needs to do better and this last-minute non-endorsement bomb was not the way to do that. And, it will have to work extra hard to regain those lost subscribers. Losing almost 10% of your subscribers in a matter of days is a major vote of no-confidence and should be a wake-up call for Bezos to not screw around like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The post had 2.5 million subscribers. Wonder what that number is now? Bezos will pull a Musk and increase that number.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/28/nx-s1-5168416/washington-post-bezos-endorsement-president-cancellations-resignations

Over 200K or close to 10% of the Post's subscribers have cancelled their subscriptions so far.

Blue-anon dweebs. Not worth keeping.

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?

Couldn't agree more.

Anonymous wrote:Self-serving twaddle. Bezos simply didn't want to get on Trump's bad side and tried to split the baby.

We, as consumers of news, get what we tolerate, especially in this era of corporate media. I cancelled, after having read the paper all my life.

Cancellation is counterproductive.

Unless, of course, you want Fox News/CNN style "journalism" to capture a larger market share. Talk about "twaddle".

WaPo is wildly imperfect. It's also among the very best daily reporting available.

I loathe Trump and I will absolutely, positively continue to subscribe to the Post.

Self-serving twaddle. Bezos simply didn't want to get on Trump's bad side and tried to split the baby.

We, as consumers of news, get what we tolerate, especially in this era of corporate media. I cancelled, after having read the paper all my life.

This is corruption she should sue

Anonymous wrote:I don’t believe him when he said there was no quid pro quo.

Like one the commenters said: Bezos himself has fascist tendencies. Look how he treats his workers - unsafe conditions, impossible performance metrics, repetitive injuries, peeing in bottles in their delivery vehicle, etc.

He and Trump are peas in a pod. Even through Trump trying to blackmail Bezos and blowing up his marriage, Bezos resisted. But now he’s finally bent the knee.

But that wasn’t enough to get the people currently upset to unsubscribe.

Simply not endorsing the installed democrat was too far.

The reporting that leads individuals to make their own choices,—lots of choosing Harris— isn’t good enough.
You need them to endorse or you have a hissy fit.

Anonymous wrote:The post had 2.5 million subscribers. Wonder what that number is now? Bezos will pull a Musk and increase that number.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/28/nx-s1-5168416/washington-post-bezos-endorsement-president-cancellations-resignations

Over 200K or close to 10% of the Post's subscribers have cancelled their subscriptions so far.

The post had 2.5 million subscribers. Wonder what that number is now? Bezos will pull a Musk and increase that number.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why people are upset. The WaPo reporting provides a running endorsement of Harris.

Any given day the top articles are a split of how Trump is bad and Harris is good.

Billionaires trying to buy our elections is out of control. The interests of Jeff bezos are not the interests of the rest of us.

If you want to win elections you need billionaire donors. So yes billionaire interest are our interests. Its a good thing. You should like it.

Anonymous wrote:I trust billionaires even less than the media

What about billionaire owned media?

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe people think cancelling their subscription will impact at all. Such a joke.

It's the same with climate change. Folks who think if they just do their part and change 10 bad habits to same the world that that will do it.

Whatever!

There's a reason he has a billion dollars and almost all of us do not. Just accept this and move on. Get angry about more important matters and spend energy where it can impact.

I’m not mad. I do vote with my dollars though.

Anonymous wrote:The timing is really what's making this into a big thing.

The actual decision is really not radical or horrible. I still don't understand why some people feel journalists have any responsibility of endorsing candidates for election. They aren't the judge and jury of anything, truly. All they should do is provide 411 on what's happening in the world and publish opinions from different perspectives. Once you get involved in endorsements you are suggesting that there is a perspective that paper feels is better than another. That's not journalism.

Editorial columnists are not journalists. The editorial board makes the endorsement.

Jennifer Rubin - editorial columnist and longtime traditional conservative.
Ellen Nakashima - national security journalist. I have no idea what her political leanings are.