Utopia Talk / Politics / WaPo and LA Times fail to endorse Harris

Rugian rank	Fri Oct 25 22:00:50 2024 Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Leftists are in full meltdown mode over this. LA Times employees are resigning in protest; WaPo employees are raging at Jeff Bezos (he apparently personally killed the paper's planned endorsement). The liberal tears being expended right now could provide enough salt to sustain McDonalds' global operations for a week.
Rugian rank	Fri Oct 25 22:05:14 2024 "Nearly 2,000 Los Angeles Times subscribers cancelled their subscriptions to the paper, citing “editorial content” reasons, after Patrick Soon-Shiong, the paper’s billionaire owner, refused to let its editorial board endorse Kamala Harris for president. And that was just on Tuesday and Wednesday. After the paper’s editorials editor, Mariel Garza, resigned in protest on Wednesday, two more members of the Los Angeles Times editorial board resigned on Thursday. Robert Greene, who won a Pulitzer Prize for the Los Angeles Times in 2021 for editorials on criminal justice reform, and Karin Klein, who wrote editorials about education and the environment, both told Semafor they were leaving the paper. Green specifically cited Soon-Shiong’s refusal to allow the paper to endorse a presidential candidate, as well as the owner’s subsequent comments about his decision." http://www...wner-blocks-harris-endorsement Imagine being so butthurt over a fucking newspaper endorsement that you literally quit your job. ROFL
kargen rank	Fri Oct 25 23:01:54 2024 Sounds like the LA Times hasn't teken an actual journalistic approach for a long time now. “I didn’t think we were going to change our readers’ minds—our readers, for the most part, are Harris supporters,” Garza told me. “We’re a very liberal paper. I didn’t think we were going to change the outcome of the election in California. “But two things concern me: This is a point in time where you speak your conscience no matter what. And an endorsement was the logical next step after a series of editorials we’ve been writing about how dangerous Trump is to democracy, about his unfitness to be president, about his threats to jail his enemies. We have made the case in editorial after editorial that he shouldn’t be reelected.”
Paramount rank	Sat Oct 26 08:38:12 2024 I haven’t watched Kamala ’Word Sallad’ Harris interview on CBS 60 minutes and on CNN. But the little I heard (from Glenn Greenwald and Tulsi Gabbard) wasn’t good. She gives an uncertain impression. Like she lacks knowledge on certain issues and thus is afraid to say anything her donor hasn't paid her to say, or that she would be criticized for later. She should have rehearsed the party's and the donor’s positions and talking points more. Or just speak from her heart more like Mr Trump.
obaminated rank	Sun Oct 27 02:45:17 2024 Trump is going full thanos
murder rank	Sun Oct 27 17:18:23 2024 Thanos lost. ;o)
Rugian rank	Tue Oct 29 00:36:59 2024 "Over 200,000 subscribers flee 'Washington Post' after Bezos blocks Harris endorsement October 28, 20243:27 PM ET The Washington Post has been rocked by a tidal wave of cancellations from digital subscribers and a series of resignations from columnists, as the paper grapples with the fallout of owner Jeff Bezos’s decision to block an endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris for president. More than 200,000 people had canceled their digital subscriptions by midday Monday, according to two people at the paper with knowledge of internal matters. Not all cancellations take effect immediately. Still, the figure represents about 8% of the paper’s paid circulation of 2.5 million subscribers, which includes print as well. The number of cancellations continued to grow Monday afternoon." http://www...ent-cancellations-resignations Ahahahahahaha. Thanos snap indeed! "Mr. Bezos I don't feel so good" - WaPo's bottom line
jergul rank	Tue Oct 29 00:57:35 2024 Editorial interferance from ownership can cause predictable backlashes. Subscriptions are basically corporate charity anyway. So why would people not pull the plug?
jergul rank	Tue Oct 29 00:59:02 2024 Your capitalists are taking up way to much O2 these days btw. It will not end well for you. Except maybe on Mars. I hear they plan to sell one way tickets.
jergul rank	Tue Oct 29 01:00:31 2024 Ours at least have the decency to just move to Switzerland. Not quite Mars, but baby steps.
murder rank	Tue Oct 29 13:57:26 2024 I'd say that Bezos is so rich that he doesn't care, but all these rich guys really hate to lose a dime. They will pay tax attorneys $999,999.99 just to avoid paying $1,000,000 in taxes.
Habebe rank	Wed Oct 30 08:17:02 2024 Remember when people claimed certain media outlets put fingers on the scale because the owners are radicals? They were told, the owners don't micro manage such things, thats crazy. Now, I suppose owners absolutley control every detail? Just asking for clarification.
murder rank	Wed Oct 30 14:15:19 2024 The editorial boards revealed that they were forbidden from endorsing, and the owners admitted as much. There's your clarification.
Rugian rank	Wed Oct 30 15:06:54 2024 Jergul You should read Bezos' explanation for why he spiked the endorsement. Trust in the news media is currently at all-time lows. Recent polls suggest that the media is in fact one of the least-trusted institutions in the United States, ranking below even Congress. WaPo adapted to the internet age by endorsing a subscription model that catered content to the wishes of its members. Revenue-wise, this strategy worked, but as it turns out the people willing to pay for a paper today tend to be the same people who are most invested in politics and are heavily opinionated on the topic. The result was a disaster for the reputations of legacy media outlets like WaPo. The subscriber base didn't want objective news coverage, they wanted an ideological bubble that constantly reaffirmed their partisan beliefs. It wasn't long before media employees started reflecting the subscribers, and soon you had a new generation of reporters who believed that the definition of "journalism" is working as hard as possible to elect Democrats. These "journalists" feel compelled to write articles that appease the base and utilize weasel language to maximize satisfaction of biases. If members complain that content is being too two-sided, they will rewrite headlines and articles to mollify them. They sneer at the concept of objectivity, which they equate with the dreaded "both-sidesism." Younger reporters have repeatedly launched staff revolts against older employees who are considered to be insufficently ideologically driven, and they have forced out editors who posted articles or opeds that went against their viewpoints. WaPo and its kin are no longer newspapers, theyre propaganda outlets. This is good if you're an upper-middle class liberal who enjoys engaging in a daily Two Minutes Hate session against the right. For everyone else, it makes the likes of WaPo unreadable. So no. The problem with WaPo's image isn't that ownership intervened to stop an endorsement. It's a much more fundamental issue...the paper made a Faustian bargain to make money in exchange for catering exclusively to the most toxic partisans in the country, and now they find themselves bound to those same people even at the long-term destruction of their credibility.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: