I don’t care.

I assume everyone agrees that different media sources have different biases. No one has a corner on the truth. If that's the case, shouldn't we be alarmed when they all seem to be falling in line with one way of looking at things? Bending the knee to Trump? Also, is it a problem if all of the in-depth, long-form journalism sources (i.e. printed media) disappear? Are you comfortable getting all of your news from tweets or talking heads?

I don't care. Do you?

I mean - who really reads the WaPo anyway? Isn't that paper seeing massive collapse in circulation even long before Bezos bought it? And, of course, they are very complicit in covering up / not reporting on things like Joe Biden's obvious cognitive decline and faking the Russian collusion while giving themselves pulitzers. So pretending there's some kind of moral high ground? Lulz.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who will hire her knowing she will write cartoons critiquing them?

The Atlantic has been recruiting WashPo journalists.

LOL, so billionaire owners are fine as long as it is the "right" kind of billionaire that agrees with you. At least Bezos actually made his own money.

I have nothing against billionaire owners; I do have something against owners who obstruct a free press, as well as owners of news organizations who contribute to presidential inaugurations.

No, you don't. Kamala Harris has been heavily bankrolled by Laurene Powell Jobs and the Atlantic has been used to try to stifle "free press" on Substack and undermine narratives in the press that don't align with her political ideology. David Geffen hugely bankrolled Obama. Stop trying to act principled about this.

+1000

The Washington Post is Bezo’s newspaper and if he decides tomorrow to run it like Oprah’s magazine and put himself on the cover of every issue he can.

Before Bezo, the Post was owned by a different rich person who decided to use it as a partisan weapon against the other team.

The difference is that the cartoonist (and the poster above) don’t seem to be able to grasp that. Various rich people and businesses have donated to every inauguration. Only if it is a political opponent is it suddenly newsworthy and oh so concerning.

She does seem to grasp that. I have not seen her argue anywhere that Bezos does not have the right to donate to the inauguration. The cartoon seems just be saying that she thinks that Bezos wants something in return for the donation. I tend to agree with her that he likely wants something in return, such as fewer regulations, protection of monopoly power, etc.

Also, sure, Bezos can put himself on the cover of the Post if he wants. And consumers and journalists can decide they don't like that version of the Post and decide to stop reading it/ working for it. I have not seen anyone argue that he is somehow restricted in anyway from running the paper as he wants- but certainly Americans have the right to disagree and choose not to support that.