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:

Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.

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

Subcommunities on Beehaw:

Socialism

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

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Jeff Bezos is muzzling the Washington Post’s opinion section. That’s a death knell. (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

7 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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] 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

right-wing hypocrisy is so common that pointing it out is a cliche, but I still think it's important to highlight here

in 2020, the NYT published an op-ed from Tom Cotton saying Trump should send in the military against the protests after George Floyd's murder

it caused a huge and predictable backlash, and the editorial editor published a defense of why they did it

We published Cotton’s argument in part because we’ve committed to Times readers to provide a debate on important questions like this. It would undermine the integrity and independence of The New York Times if we only published views that editors like me agreed with, and it would betray what I think of as our fundamental purpose — not to tell you what to think, but to help you think for yourself.

this was always the excuse for platforming the right-wing in supposedly "liberal" newspapers. we need to listen to different viewpoints. have the debate. teach the controversy. marketplace of ideas. if you don't like it, then you're "close-minded" or live in an "echo chamber" or whatever.

(the NYT's long history of publishing transphobic bullshit comes to mind as well)

but then the ratchet clicks one notch tighter, and you have Bezos announcing that they will only publish op-eds that are in favor of "personal liberties and free markets". they won't publish competing viewpoints, because you can always find those elsewhere on the internet.

this argument would have applied equally in 2020, of course. Tom Cotton was a sitting Senator. he can publish his opinions on his Senate website, he can easily hold press conferences, etc. there was no need for the NYT to publish it.

when it's a supposedly "liberal" newspaper, they claim they have an obligation to also publish the "respectable" conservative voices. but when a paper decides to be explicitly right-wing, they don't even pay lip service to claiming they're publishing "both sides".

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

"Both sides" is and has always been a dog whistle.

There are not two sides to the truth. Period, graf.

Journalism is viewed by some as liberal because instead of JAQ, we actually fucking ask questions, and that makes Nazis sad. They're remarkably thin-skinned, hence needing outfits.