Washington Post cancellations hit 250,000 – 10% of subscribers
Reader backlash against decision not to make presidential endorsement rolls on despite Bezos defense of decision
You're viewing a single thread.
I don't really understand. A news outlet shouldn't be engaging in bias.
So it's unethical and propaganda when one endorses your opponent and just as much so when one doesn't do the same thing for yours?
In other countries, we call that hypocrisy or a 'doible-standard'. I believe I've heard Americans say something similar as, "Rules for thee but not for me."
The only thing that should be done is reporting on the other news outlet breeching journalism ethics or influencing in an election, because that's the news here.
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.
Not even just that, if this decision had been made last January, this wouldn’t be news, but the fact that it was made in the last few days in the run up to the election means that no matter how altruistic their decision was, it’s gonna be viewed in the light of the current moment.
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.
1880 to 1968, no official endorsements for or against any presidential candidate
1972 anti-Republican endorsement
1976, 80, 84 pro-Democrat endorsements
1988 no endorsement
1992, 96, 00, 04, 08, 12, 16, 20 pro-Democrat endorsements
2024 no endorsement
I would consider all but 1 since 1972 to be a long time, it's longer than I've been alive.
So they started endorsing the Democrats when the Republicans became a criminal enterprise over half a century ago you mean.
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.
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.
It should have been over for him the moment he mocked disabled journalist Serge Kovaleski in November of 2015 in any reasonable society.
Some more links if anyone needs resources to share with people (don’t give up hope):
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.
Just so you know, Saltesc has made a string of bad faith comments that are pro right-wing bs.
I don't disagree at all. Trump is an absolute madman, and it's amazing to me that he's even in the conversation for running for president.
But, facts need to be cited, always. If a newspaper endorses Harris and says she's a better candidate than Trump, they had better explain with evidence why this is the case. Not doing so would be just as biased, and one of the cornerstones of a Democratic campaign is truth.
Well, yeah. Presumably that's why WaPo had a whole editorial devoted to it, and not just one sentence that said "Harris will be a better President than Trump."
So freedom of speech really is just a cudgel the right uses against the left? It's not really something they believe in.
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.
Democracy dies in darkness
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.
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.
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.