Post New

Big.
Signals Bezos doesn't think Harris is going to win, and he doesn't want to honk Trump off too much.

Big.
Signals Bezos doesn't think Harris is going to win, and he doesn't want to honk Trump off too much.

Accurate assessment. Jeff Bezos joins billionaire owner of LA Post in knuckling under to to the threats made by authoritarian and fascist Trump.

This is how freedom is lost.
However, many on the news staff are in revolt. Perhaps many of them will join their colleagues on substack.

Here, I’ll do my miniscule part to help them along. I cancelled my subscription to the NYTimes a year ago. Next month, I’ll do the same with WaPo. Perhaps I’ll use the money saved to buy a paid subscription to the Bulwark.

Yes, WaPo, democracy does die in darkness. Who knew you’d be one of those turning out the lights?

Don't subscribe to WashPo or LA Times. Though I am dismayed by their lack of courage. Endorse someone. I would prefer it to be Harris, but if they publish an article about why they endorse a convicted felon, that's fine. Just make a stand (editorially speaking), and defend it.

I think the editorially staff of both should quit. I believe the LA Times already did.

Dope1: Big.
Signals Bezos doesn't think Harris is going to win, and he doesn't want to honk Trump off too much.

Rather, it signals that the newspaper that had the moral courage to tell Americans that the Watergate break-in was part of a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage on behalf of the Nixon re-election committee -- a revelation that resulted in 69 indictments and 48 convictions, involving several high-ranking officials from the Nixon administration -- is now run by spineless cowards.

Executive editor Ben Bradlee and publisher Katherine Graham knew they might be tarred and feathered but refused to knuckle under to personal and professional threats.

But Bezos, who has more money than he could spend in a thousand lifetimes, evidently is no Bradlee or Graham.

The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election. We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.

---------------------

I just cancelled my subscription to the Washington Post.

Absolute cowardice masquerading as principled, independent-minded journalism.


WTH

You should see the reader comments in WaPo.

Overflowing comments.

And everyone seems pretty clear about the issue and how WaPo has utterly failed to meet the moment.

This IS how democracy dies.

WaPo usually doesn't endorse a candidate. Nothing new.

WaPo usually doesn't endorse a candidate. Nothing new.

The Washington Post has historically endorsed presidential candidates, a practice it has followed for decades.
However, as of October 25, 2024, the newspaper announced that it will no longer endorse any presidential candidates in the current election or in future elections.
This marks a significant shift from its previous stance, where it had endorsed candidates in nearly every presidential election since 1976, starting with Jimmy Carter.

The decision has sparked backlash from former staff members, including former executive editor Marty Baron,
who criticized it as a "moment of darkness" for democracy and an act of cowardice.
Many within the newsroom expressed shock and disappointment at the announcement.

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/25/nx-s1-5165353/washi...

Perhaps I’ll use the money saved to buy a paid subscription to the Bulwark.

Now THERE's a quality source! Yeah, post what they say.

The Talibans are gonna "cancel subscriptions"!

LOL

More tribalism and intolerance.

I love it.

"Trayvon!"

TALIBANIS want to stay in their media silos.

This is just example number 142.

Here's to the media voices I disagree with - I seek them out often.

On Friday afternoon, the Washington Post announced that it would not be making an endorsement in the presidential race. After that, a number of things happened very quickly.
First, the paper’s former executive editor Marty Baron called the decision “cowardice.”
Second, at least one senior Post opinion writer resigned.
Third, it was leaked that the editor of the editorial page had already drafted the paper’s endorsement of Kamala Harris when publisher Will Lewis—who is a new hire, hailing from the Rupert Murdoch journalism tree—quashed it and then released a CYA statement about how the paper was “returning to its roots” of not endorsing candidates. The Post itself reported that the decision was made by the paper’s owner, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos. 
Jonathan Last at “The Bulwark”

WaPo usually doesn't endorse a candidate. Nothing new.

A simple google search says it definitely IS new. From https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/washington-po...

The Post has endorsed a presidential contender in every general election since 1992. Lewis said his newsroom is "going back to" the practice of not formally backing White House aspirants, explaining that The Post did not make an endorsement during various presidential campaigns, including in 1960 or 1972.

I just cancelled my subscription to the Washington Post.

Just cancelled mine, too. Cowards.

"The Talibans are gonna "cancel subscriptions"!

LOL

More tribalism and intolerance.

I love it.

"Trayvon!""

The usual Jedi rantings where he tries to associate things that don't go together in order to express his irrational hatred of all things liberal.

What he doesn't realize is that his rantings exposes his true colors. Jedi does not believe in freedom. He attacks those who choose to use their freedom of association.

"WaPo usually doesn't endorse a candidate. Nothing new."

Ummm...someone's been out of the loop for several decades.

The endorsement from just four years ago:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/28...

'Here’s a roundup of the Post Editorial Board’s endorsements in the 2020 elections. This list will be updated as more endorsements are published.
U.S. president and vice president: Joe Biden and Kamala Harris (D)'

Pete

The Washington Post has historically endorsed presidential candidates, a practice it has followed for decades.

Still a great paper and I won't cancel my subscription:

SNIP The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election. We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.

As our Editorial Board wrote in 1960:

“The Washington Post has not ‘endorsed’ either candidate in the presidential campaign. That is in our tradition and accords with our action in five of the last six elections. The unusual circumstances of the 1952 election led us to make an exception when we endorsed General Eisenhower prior to the nominating conventions and reiterated our endorsement during the campaign. In the light of hindsight we retain the view that the arguments for his nomination and election were compelling. But hindsight also has convinced us that it might have been wiser for an independent newspaper in the Nation’s Capital to have avoided formal endorsement.”

The Editorial Board made two other points — ahead of an election that John F. Kennedy won — that will resonate with readers today:

“The election of 1960 is certainly as important as any held in this century. This newspaper is in no sense noncommittal about the challenges that face the country. As our readers will be aware, we have attempted to make clear in editorials our conviction that most of the time one of the two candidates has shown a deeper understanding of the issues and a larger capacity for leadership.”

However, it concluded:

“We nevertheless adhere to our tradition of non-endorsement in this presidential election. We have said and will continue to say, as reasonably and candidly as we know how, what we believe about the emerging issues of the campaign. We have sought to arrive at our opinions as fairly as possible, with the guidance of our own principles of independence but free of commitment to any party or candidate.”

And again in 1972, the Editorial Board posed and then answered this critical question ahead of an election which President Richard M. Nixon won: “In talking about the choice of a President of the United States, what is a newspaper’s proper role? … Our own answer is that we are, as our masthead proclaims, an independent newspaper, and that with one exception (our support of President Eisenhower in 1952), it has not been our tradition to bestow formal endorsement upon presidential candidates. We can think of no reason to depart from that tradition this year.”

That was strong reasoning, but in 1976 for understandable reasons at the time, we changed this long-standing policy and endorsed Jimmy Carter as president. But we had it right before that, and this is what we are going back to.

We recognize that this will be read in a range of ways, including as a tacit endorsement of one candidate, or as a condemnation of another, or as an abdication of responsibility. That is inevitable. We don’t see it that way. We see it as consistent with the values The Post has always stood for and what we hope for in a leader: character and courage in service to the American ethic, veneration for the rule of law, and respect for human freedom in all its aspects. We also see it as a statement in support of our readers’ ability to make up their own minds on this, the most consequential of American decisions — whom to vote for as the next president.

Our job at The Washington Post is to provide through the newsroom nonpartisan news for all Americans, and thought-provoking, reported views from our opinion team to help our readers make up their own minds.

Most of all, our job as the newspaper of the capital city of the most important country in the world is to be independent.

And that is what we are and will be. SNIP

As I said I won't be canceling either the NYT or WaPo. While I'm disappointed, I'm not going to not support great newspapers. Not everyone sees things my way, so I'm not too concerned when they do something like this. I'm more concerned with the election.

"WaPo usually doesn't endorse a candidate. Nothing new."

Ummm...someone's been out of the loop for several decades.

Nope, see my post. I read the editorial. I didn't stop Twitter just because Elon took over, though I dislike him a lot. I won't cancel WaPo just because of this, they are a good source, nor will I cancel NYT. I care about the election itself and don't expect everyone to agree with me or see things my way. Whether they endorse or don't won't make a difference.

I do boycott Wendy's now, but that is after listening to a woman organizing people who pick tomatoes in the field in the US, Mexico, and other countries. What won me over were that they were being successful in lowering violence in the fields and particularly against women. For that I'll boycott Wendy's. I'm disappointed in WaPo and NYT, but they are great newspapers that I read.

Signals Bezos doesn't think Harris is going to win, and he doesn't want to honk Trump off too much.

Cowardly. And stupid.

Here’s a roundup of the Post Editorial Board’s endorsements in the 2020 elections.

Even further, the WaPo has endorsed other candidates for state races in the upcoming election. Makes their claim that they're simply returning to their roots ring pretty hollow.

For further insight into the decision - an interview with the now former Editor-at-large Robert Kagan.

CNN, a little over 9 minutes.

https://youtu.be/FIYdQS9Plw0?si=IZUfGKH6MpStjNmi

--Peter

I just cancelled my subscription to the Washington Post.

I did, too, but it's sad for the many fine journalists who work there. Fcuk Bezos.

Look at the ownership! Who's the owner? Are they in Trump's pocket, or just (Dear God) afraid of him??

WaPo usually doesn't endorse a candidate. Nothing new.

You're wrong.

The Post has endorsed a presidential contender in every general election since 1992. Lewis said his newsroom is "going back to" the practice of not formally backing White House aspirants, explaining that The Post did not make an endorsement during various presidential campaigns, including in 1960 or 1972.

Cowardly. And stupid.

Cowardly? Yes. Stupid? I don’t think so.

Keep in mind that Trump is already taking his cues from the authoritarian playbook. He has threatened retaliation against media companies who don’t kowtow to his will. He’s said that CBS should have its broadcast license pulled.

I’m sure Bezos is not that concerned about the Post. He’s far more concerned about any potential retaliation hitting Amazon.

Contrary to Dope’s idiotic comment about the probability of Harris losing, Bezos is simply weighing the outcomes. If Harris wins, there is no real impact to the endorsement. Harris is not a corrupt egomaniac who would shower favors on those who endorse her. (Remember that the editorial staff was going to endorse Harris.) But if Trump wins, the Post having endorsed Harris would almost certainly be held against Bezos by Trump.

With no upside and only potential downsides to an endorsement of Harris, Bezos - like the billionaire owner of the LA Times - chose to put money ahead of principles and nix the planned Harris endorsement.

So not stupid, but definitely cowardly.

—Peter

Are they in Trump's pocket, or just (Dear God) afraid of him??

Definitely afraid.

Such is the power of someone on the authoritarian-fascist spectrum.

—Peter

You're wrong.

Everybody's told me. See the post I made.

So not stupid, but definitely cowardly.

Agree, and it doesn't really bother me. This is the world we live in now. You can't put things past Trump.

I’m sure Bezos is not that concerned about the Post. He’s far more concerned about any potential retaliation hitting Amazon.

Moral of the story: Jeff Bezos should find a hobby other than owner of the Washington Post.

Turns out it’s a millstone around his neck. Wouldn’t blame him if he sold it. In fact, I’d think it would be in his best interest.

Last count at 5 pm): 2000 canceled WaPo subscriptions, and that was very soon after the announcement that WaPo wouldn’t be endorsing anyone.
Last count: 11 pm 21 thousand comments on the article making the announcement- almost all of them negative.

Who knows how many Amazon Prime subscriptions are being canceled? Purchases on Amazon?
My wife wanted a new kindle for Christmas but while each of us was canceling our WaPo subscriptions, she told me to hold off on the Amazon Kindle purcase. I don’t think we’re the only ones making such decisions tonight. Still…. chump change for Jeff Bezos.


But at some point he may begin to wonder if his newspaper hobby is worth it.

it doesn't really bother me.

It should bother you. Letting authoritarians have their way only invites more authoritarians into power.

They’re just like schoolyard bullies. Giving in to a bully only invites more bullying. You have to stand up to bullies and authoritarians or you are going to live under their fickle thumb.

—Peter

Who knows how many Amazon Prime subscriptions are being canceled

Heh. Not near enough to move the needle.

it doesn't really bother me.

It should bother you. Letting authoritarians have their way only invites more authoritarians into power.

As I said, I'm disappointed, but I'm working through that I think we aren't going to win. And with that I realize that Trump likely skates on everything. So there is no reckoning. We get to see what Trump will be like in another term. The vindictive retribution, likely retreat from NATO, Ukraine forced to compromise, no realization by MAGA of anything. Trump gets pardoned and Nearly all Jan 6ers do too. We get some version of booting immigrants, etc. We're going to live through all that. In light of that, it's minor. On top of that the stones in my ears have come loose and Epley exercises have helped some, but I get dizzy and have to sit. I hope I'm wrong, but I think we're not going to win.

This actually shows not just how Intolerant Sheeple Liberals are, but also how out of touch.

"The Post didn't endorse!"

yes it's really on everybody's mind.

*pssssst a majority of the country in BOTH parties - you know, people that Sheeple segregates themselves away from - don't give a crap about the Post or any paper endorsing or not.

But condemn away.

"Only Lemmings Condemn"

I agree

"The Post didn't endorse!"

If you had the ability to actually understand complex issues instead of pretending to be a performance art poster, you’d realize that the issue isn’t the endorsement or lack thereof. The issue is WHY they didn’t issue the endorsement the editorial staff was ready to make.

I’d explain further, but that’s already been done and you’ve made your choice to ignore the explanation.

—Peter

"The Post didn't endorse!"

If you had the ability to actually understand complex issues instead of pretending to be a performance art poster, you’d realize that the issue isn’t the endorsement or lack thereof. The issue is WHY they didn’t issue the endorsement the editorial staff was ready to make.

I’d explain further, but that’s already been done and you’ve made your choice to ignore the explanation.
***

HEE HEE then the snobs wonder why they are reduced to begging for Roe v Wade and have a 7-2 court :)


Yours truly long ago (when I cared) used to warn that a culture and a system that robs people of critical thinking skills and also a culture that makes a country tribal - will have ramifications. And this is one of them. I fully understand the beef of "why" there's no endorsement - but then again I don't read posts from you complaining how Liberal rich people are controlling more and more media so cry crocodile tears elsewhere Pedro.

LOL

Also learn to walk and chew gum. Certainly you can be concerned as to "why" there's no endorsement. But I am equally allowed to point out that most people don't give a crap about the Washington Post's endorsement. So let the Muftis and Mullahs "cancel subscriptions" and literally track the cancellation figures.

Endorsement or not.

Harris or Trump.

your trajectory is still .....so well deserved and a delight to watch unfold :)

In your 50.1% tribal society - people will have no choice but to be careful - the way Bezos did.

Isn't it great?

Yes it's delicious.

Who knows how many Amazon Prime subscriptions are being canceled

Heh. Not near enough to move the needle.
****

For Sheeple results mean *ZERO*

It's about being in the bubble. Flexing muscles of intolerance. Vanity.


"Trayvon! " "Zimmerman!"

HEE HEE then the snobs wonder why they are reduced to begging for Roe v Wade and have a 7-2 court :)

Ya know Jedi, there are *Real People* at the end of your HEE HEE. Someone may have sex or get raped and find themselves bewildered by the forces and choices surrounding them. I just want them to have it easier so they can be guided into making their choice as aware as then CAN be. It's their choice, not mine, but I can understand how you might not be at your best after being raped repeatedly by your stepfather at age 12.

Ya know Jedi, there are *Real People* at the end of your HEE HEE.

The MAGA cultists glory in their cruelty and celebrate stupidity. Just like their glorious guru.

HEE HEE then the snobs wonder why they are reduced to begging for Roe v Wade and have a 7-2 court :)

How's that incel life working out for you? You seem happy and well-adjusted...

And about that controlling women's healthcare thing...
The Red State of Texas has one of the nation's most restrictive abortion laws, they completely control women's bodies and their lives.
Under Texas law, abortions are prohibited in almost all cases, including rape and incest, and are allowed only to save the life of the pregnant person.
Texas is among the 9 states with total abortion bans that lack exceptions for rape or incest.
Texas has had 26,313 rape-caused pregnancies during the 16 months after implementing a near-total abortion ban following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June 2022.

This is your heartless/brainless Republican Party, folks. They’ll force a twelve-year-old to give birth to her stepfather’s rape-baby, and tell you that's freedom!
They'll tell you who you can marry, and tell you that's freedom!
They'll tell you what books you can read, and tell you that's freedom!
They'll prevent you and your family from getting healthcare, and tell you that's freedom!
They'll weaken labor protections and union rights, which is why folks in red states earn less than folks in blue states, and tell you that's freedom! The sweet freedom to be poor! MAGA!

"As the 21st century began...human evolution was at a turning point...it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most...and left the intelligent to become an endangered species." ~Idiocracy

https://abc13.com/texas-abortion-law-no-exceptions...

How's that incel life working out for you? You seem happy and well-adjusted...
****

Joyful and constantly laughing sums it up - thanks !


As far as Roe I'm on record saying it was bad policy, and horrible politics to reverse it.


And I hate the Taliban elements on my side where it comes to things like rape, incest, IVF, tracking periods, etc.


Next?

Post New

Macroeconomic Trends and Risks FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.