Furious Washington Post readers have accused the news organisation of “caving in” to Donald Trump and failing to abide by its principles, while staff begged supporters not to cancel their subscriptions, as the media outlet struggles to cope with the fallout of its decision not to endorse Kamala Harris in the US presidential election.
For the first time in more than 30 years, the Washington Post announced on Friday its editorial board would not be endorsing a candidate.
“We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates,” Will Lewis, the newspaper’s publisher and chief executive officer, said in a statement on Friday, less than two weeks before the critical poll.
In letters to the editor, readers expressed their “disappointment, disgust and despair” at the extraordinary decision, which has been fiercely criticised across liberal America and has prompted a wave of subscription cancellations at the newspaper that exposed the Watergate scandal and brought down a president.
I’m willing to bet they were preparing an endorsement of Harris and someone stepped in to block it.
You know, someone with control of the Post who would benefit from Trump tax cuts.
But who would BE ZO Stupid?
They had already written an endorsement of Harris before their CEO/publisher (Will Lewis) told them they couldn’t print it.
The thing is, there’s no downside to it for Bezos. If Harris wins, she’ll operate as normal. If tfg wins and Bezos was against him, he knows he’ll get screwed over by the government somehow - an antitrust or monopoly investigation, something.
But he’s telling fascists ahead of time that he’s okay with whatever tfg wants to do, just don’t hurt him. And that’s how fascists win.
Let’s be honest, being billionaire taker scum he probably likes the fascists better anyway.
Similar to the LA Times?
Yes exactly like that!
Plus maybe some antitrust lawsuits if we’re lucky
deleted by creator
Cancel WaPo
Cancel Amazon
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian’s op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.
Wiki: mixed - Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a “blogposts” tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Media Bias/Fact Check - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Media Bias/Fact Check:
Wiki: unreliable - There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site’s ratings.
MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United States of America
