DC is in major need of a journalistic reboot. I predict a new-comer dominates in the next 3 years.
mikestew · 3h ago
I'm not sure if Bezo's plan is outright sabotage of a venerable media outlet (how did we go from Bernstein and Woodward to the current editorial train wreck?), or if he got a new toy and never knew exactly what to do with it and we are just observing simple incompetence.
bediger4000 · 4h ago
I cancelled my WaPo subscription after Bezos personally intervened to block what to me seemed like an obvious endorsement of Harris and then scolded us all a few days later. No American should allow themselves to be scold by an oligarch without rebuke, and unsubscribing is the only way to do that.
Despite what the article says, it's pretty easy to decide that Bezos' direct and one step indirect decisions are what's driving WaPo downhill. Given the size of the comment sections on WaPo articles and opinions, it's difficult for me to believe that Bezos is doing these changes because of some surge of reader sentiment. Giving an intern a week in the comments, or doing some old school sentiment analysis of them would tell you that WaPo's news slant and fact checking slant were massively unpopular. This is another example of an oligarch's personal opinions pit in action that wreck an institution.
mrangle · 1h ago
Aren't Americans also scolded by oligarchs, via the media that oligarchs own, when the scolding is of the type with which you agree?
Isn't oligarch decision making what causes media to also pursue directions with which you agree?
atonse · 2h ago
I'm genuinely curious about your rationale to cancel your subscription after the endorsement was pulled. I have a friend who did the same and haven't had a chance to chat with him about why either.
I am still a Post subscriber, and I wasn't bothered by them removing the Harris endorsement. I personally don't like the idea that a paper should be endorsing ANY candidate. It just feels very "we know better than you, listen to us" which is against the spirit of the press, in my opinion.
I definitely would've had a bigger issue had Bezos forced them to endorse Trump (partly because I don't like the idea of endorsements, and I wouldn't have agreed with their endorsement, but most importantly that the owner is now tipping the scales).
But in this case, the result was a neutral one (they didn't endorse anyone), isn't that what we want from our newspapers? To be neutral during elections and just report what's going on?
rightbyte · 1h ago
> isn't that what we want from our newspapers? To be neutral during elections and just report what's going on?
I prefer when newspaper have a stated affiliation. I.e. 'Fancy Party X' or 'unbound whateverist' etc. Pretending they are neutral just makes you wonder who they actually support.
Despite what the article says, it's pretty easy to decide that Bezos' direct and one step indirect decisions are what's driving WaPo downhill. Given the size of the comment sections on WaPo articles and opinions, it's difficult for me to believe that Bezos is doing these changes because of some surge of reader sentiment. Giving an intern a week in the comments, or doing some old school sentiment analysis of them would tell you that WaPo's news slant and fact checking slant were massively unpopular. This is another example of an oligarch's personal opinions pit in action that wreck an institution.
Isn't oligarch decision making what causes media to also pursue directions with which you agree?
I am still a Post subscriber, and I wasn't bothered by them removing the Harris endorsement. I personally don't like the idea that a paper should be endorsing ANY candidate. It just feels very "we know better than you, listen to us" which is against the spirit of the press, in my opinion.
I definitely would've had a bigger issue had Bezos forced them to endorse Trump (partly because I don't like the idea of endorsements, and I wouldn't have agreed with their endorsement, but most importantly that the owner is now tipping the scales).
But in this case, the result was a neutral one (they didn't endorse anyone), isn't that what we want from our newspapers? To be neutral during elections and just report what's going on?
I prefer when newspaper have a stated affiliation. I.e. 'Fancy Party X' or 'unbound whateverist' etc. Pretending they are neutral just makes you wonder who they actually support.