The paper did not endorse either candidate, breaking with a tradition going back to 2008.
If they’d never endorsed anyone, I could see it being a matter of ethics, but just randomly deciding to change an established pattern is lame as hell.
Like, if a journalist publication wants up stay neutral, that’s great (preferred, imo). But don’t try and backtrack over a decade of partisanship without a damn good reason, and there isn’t one in this case. That makes it more bullshit from the owner class, which is business as usual.
Almost immediately after buying it he killed a story about another wealthy friend’s dog who bit someone.
Billionaires aren’t buying media to make money, it’s to control the media.
We need to do something about them before they can just buy terminator robots.
They can already buy the government, it won’t take much longer till they don’t need to.
Oh don’t be mistaken, it’s also to make money.
Oh yes…
Those amazing profit margins from…
Print media and social media website that have literally never made a profit?
With the amount of money they use to buy media conglomerates there are much better investment opportunities, this guy paid half a billion cash for and like another 90 million of assumed debt.
Almost a sixth of the price was bills the company couldn’t pay because it’s unprofitable.
The only responsible and professional response to a craven, hypocritical, and fascist enabling media ownership.
More of this, and less of every other thing.
Let their cousin NY Times explain how this news dooms Democrats chances in 2024
