• JonEFive@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 hour ago

      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.

    • seaQueue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 hour ago

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

  • Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    4 hours ago

    The numbers are based on the number of cancellation emails that have been sent out, according to a source at the paper, though the subscriber dashboard is no longer viewable to employees.

    Bozos doesn’t like you looking at how badly he fucked up.

      • Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I don’t think I’ve ever watched anything from Amazon directly.

        Seen lots of their content though :) 🏴‍☠️

      • Orbituary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Letting mine go. I kept it for Vox Machina, but I will acquire it other ways next season and support the team directly.

      • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Yup, I’m not paying an extra $3/mo on top of what I pay for prime for no ads, I’ll just not watch what’s on your service. Not to mention, most of the filler movies/shows on all of these streaming services are garbage anyway. If it weren’t for my wife, I would just have my Jellyfin server by itself.

        If I lived anywhere near a city and not in the mountains, I wouldn’t have prime either. It just saves too much time whereas my time is in short supply and I don’t have it to make a 3 hour round trip run every few days.

  • saltesc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    36
    ·
    4 hours ago

    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.

    • barsquid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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.

    • athairmor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      4 hours ago

      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.

      • JaymesRS@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        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.

    • sensibilidades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 hours ago

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

    • RisingSwell@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      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.

      • pfwood178@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        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

    • nialv7@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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.

    • Orbituary@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      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.

    • cakeistheanswer@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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.

    • horse_battery_staple@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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.