this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2025
86 points (100.0% liked)

Politics

10258 readers
270 users here now

In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.


Guidelines for submissions:

These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.


Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

For those who came in late, this is not perhaps the killing blow ... I don't think they have another quarter-million news aficionados still subscribed after the endorsement fiasco, but this is idiotic for the brand.

"Finding it elsewhere online?" Come on, Bezos. You're only rich because people can't find things elsewhere online.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Back in the day when a small city had two or three newspapers and big cities would have 5 to 10 they would proudly post the owners politics on the front page.

We need to recognize that the option is to have more media that delineates their politics not one where the rich douche acts like he is special.

That is the response. Don't let one newspaper pretend that they can show every editorial point of view. Just recognize that the Washington Post is a shitrag for a selfish hoarding billionaire. And if you ever want to know what a hording billionaire thinks than read his digital toilet paper AKA the Washington Post.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago

In this specific case, ceding ground to The Washington Times is not an improvement.

But bleeding everyone experienced has not gone well for other papers over the past 20 years.