Washington Post cancellations hit 250,000 – 10% of subscribers

Do Amazon next. I plan to let mine expire. Amazon video is trash.

It’s down 10% which is the literal definition of decimated!

That's weird. I know CNN is quite familiar with dipshits intervening in coverage, so they should be able to spot it. They had one fuckface bend over backwards to give Donald an hour in front of a friendly live audience with a milquetoast moderator who was able to do fuckall against the lies.

Was there any evidence that Bozos made that decision? We’re all ready to believe it but want it just one persons allegation or something?

picture of Kelly self-insert

We have only 2 major parties and one has been a criminal enterprise for 56 years

• Nixon Watergate
• Reagan: sold drugs to buy guns for guys Congress said not to buy guns for because they were mass murderers
• Bush Sr US: helped with above
• Bush Jr faked evidence for a war which killed half a million people and cost 6 trillion dollars also illegally tortured
• Trump do I even need to do this one?

At this point Trump wants to form militias to round up 25M people and drag them to concentration camps and turn the military loose on anyone who disagrees.

This includes 11M undocumented workers who almost all live law abiding lives and Americans who were born here from above who are by our constitution citizens regardless of the status of their parents.

He has publically called for violence, and end to our constitution, a new era where the dictator tells the government what the law is.

It is strange for any responsible party not to oppose essentially Hitler.

The comparison doesn't work. In the US it is common practice that a newspaper gives a recommendation.

Also the US has a two party system. Compare this to Germany's multi party system. If you are undecided between to options a recommendation might help. If you are undecided whether you should vote the Greens or SPD a newspaper recommending CDU doesn't help you at all.

While it is not illegal for a newspaper to give a recommendation in Germany, it would be a scandal indeed. But the only reason for this would be that they didn't do it before. People are just complaining about changes like in this case as well

Fwiw, this was always the “op Ed” section, editorial opinion.

I do believe that most reputable news sources historically distinguished facts they reported on from their editors opinion. It’s worth the same as any other well-informed persons opinion.

Of course that also led to Fox “News” and a radically misinformed public, so it certainly went to hell

Exactly - I find the comments in this thread very confusing. A free and impartial press is one of the cornerstones of democracy.

I now understand a lot better why there is such a distrust in journalism in the US.

If you still work at the Post after all this time it's kind of on you. They've had years to find employment at outlets that aren't a direct mouthpiece for Bezos.

The can cancel as well and work somewhere else.

I daresay this is the outcome he hoped for. Suddenly there are a bunch of open editorial author seats to fill. Taking bets on those seats being filled by people who don't lean quite so far to the left.

And a significant loss in subscribers? That's just the principled people fleeing who weren't gonna buy his nonsense either way. The people who stick around are the ones who are okay with billionaire interference in their news source, and those are the people Bezos wants as subscribers.

And he doesn't give a shit. Subscribers don't matter, control of a well known paper that will push his interests does.

When the thing you enjoy and rely on is privately owned, the only way you can express your disappointment is to vote with your dollar.

Who says it’s to hurt him? The man has billions and billions. If he lost nearly all his wealth he’d still be filthy rich. It’s about not consuming news that’s being blatantly influenced by people with power and money.

So do nothing and continue to financially support something you disagree with? Are you a cuck or something?

Editorial boards are independent from newsrooms. They publish all sorts of opinions. That’s the point of the op ed sections of new outlets.

Back when news agencies were trusted, it was very common to respect the opinion of the editorial board as a well considered well informed source. I may not agree with it but I’d know it to have a good argument. It was also always distinct from news. In an “Opinion” section.

Newspapers have a long history of publishing editorials and opinion pieces. Newspapers are rarely, if ever, pure, objective news. Endorsements fall under the editorial content. They are an established tradition.

When the owner dictates that no endorsement should be made because it conflicts with his views, that’s a problem. It’s not the editors with domain knowledge making the call but the self-serving business-man doing it. And it’s not for the good of the paper, it’s for his business interests and personal ideology.

That is the problem.

Every previous election for a long time wapo has endorsed a candidate. The only reason they aren't is because of the second richest man in the world told them not to.

This clown has done an insurrection, says he's allowed to kill political opponents, promises to be a dictator, says Haitians are eating cats. Among other things, that's nowhere near a comprehensive list. Any news outlet that is not explicitly saying "this is the worst choice for the country" is biased. It is an objective fact that Donald is the wrong choice.

Uhh, stating that Kamala Harris would make a better President than Donald Trump is a factual statement, not a biased one.

There is no objective measure to assess the performance of a President where Trump would exceed Harris.

Every news organisation is biased. The content they choose to emphasize, the time they spend on a subject, who they interview or what they say is all bias. How often they return to it or when it gets covered also show bias.

Bias in news is not automatically bad. Lying or false representation is. Somewhere in the recent past we swallowed some sort of pill making us think news agencies can't have a stance.

So freedom of speech really is just a cudgel the right uses against the left? It's not really something they believe in.

I believe not wanting to put the guy back in who did nothing as the Saudi's bone sawed one of your writers falls into; common sense.

Bozo thought his own op ed was more important than the journalism of his "editorial board", people who he presumably pays to write opinions. People who are journalists.

He thinks he's an astronaut and a journalist because he can buy rocket companies and papers, but he's a clown demonstrating his own lack of understanding of bias in plain English, his paper is worth but the circus music following him.

Democracy dies in darkness

I don’t really understand. A news outlet shouldn’t be engaging in bias.

I don't really understand. A commenter shouldn't so obviously have bad faith takes on their profile.

All journalism has bias, it's literally impossible to not have a bias. It's how the journalist corrects that bias that is important. But understanding that might require nuance that you don't yet have.

I think what I look for is not being unbiased, but being independent. i.e. no conflict of interests, no direct relation with any political entities, not vested in the success of either side. And WaPo has failed that.

And stop pretending both sides are equal. Endorsing Trump is unethical.