News Article: Bezos Gives Directive to WaPo Editorial Page

[jthomas666]

Basically, the focus of the editorials will be the promotion of personal liberties and free markets. Anything that goes against those pillars will not be addressed at all. A despicable move from the guy who claimed to be a hands-off owner when he purchased the paper.

Washington Post opinion editor departs as Bezos pushes to promote ‘personal liberties and free markets’

Opinion editor leaves as Amazon executive and newspaper owner says ‘viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others’

www.theguardian.com

 

[mdb-tpet]

Basically, the focus of the editorials will be the promotion of personal liberties and free markets. Anything that goes against those pillars will not be addressed at all. A despicable move from the guy who claimed to be a hands-off owner when he purchased the paper.

Washington Post opinion editor departs as Bezos pushes to promote ‘personal liberties and free markets’

Opinion editor leaves as Amazon executive and newspaper owner says ‘viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others’

www.theguardian.com

There goes another great publication. We absolutely need well written, well researched, well thought out, and diverse opinions in this country to combat with the ugly ham-fisted narrative machines. I'll miss the WaPo, but someone else will take their place.

Dear God we need the Fairness Doctrine back.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Basically, the focus of the editorials will be the promotion of personal liberties and free markets. Anything that goes against those pillars will not be addressed at all. A despicable move from the guy who claimed to be a hands-off owner when he purchased the paper.

Washington Post opinion editor departs as Bezos pushes to promote ‘personal liberties and free markets’

Opinion editor leaves as Amazon executive and newspaper owner says ‘viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others’

www.theguardian.com

Weird flex that feels years late. I think I understand what he's attempting to do (save the platform) but I genuinely think it's too late. The time to pull this stunt would have been when I bought the place, not after it has lost all pretense of journalistic integrity.

 

[lowend]

There goes another great publication. We absolutely need well written, well researched, well thought out, and diverse opinions in this country to combat with the ugly ham-fisted narrative machines. I'll miss the WaPo, but someone else will take their place.

Dear God we need the Fairness Doctrine back.

The problem is that we will never get that and neutral at the same time. It will always be far right or far left.

 

[Its On A Slab]

The main reason I pulled the plug on my WaPost subscription was the utter destruction of a once great media outlet.

I did the same with The National Review not long after William Buckley's death. It became just another Republican Sound Machine with Rich Lowrey, et. al.

 

[Tidewater]

I would call the board's attention to some of the newspapers from American history.
The Sally Hemings libel was in a partisan newspaper, the story given by a frustrated man seeking federal employment.

In 1860 (a period with which I am familiar), the Chicago Democrat was a rabidly Republican newspaper. The Jacksonville (Ala.) Republican was just as rabidly pro-Democratic. Richmond has a Douglas Democrat paper (Richmond Dispatch), a Breckinridge Democrat paper (Richmond Enquirer) and a Constitutional Union paper (Richmond Whig). Everybody knew what they were getting when they bought each one.
Partisan press has existed throughout the vast majority of the history of these United States. The aberration was the Progressive Era (say, 1900-1952), when (in theory) "experts" were to be trusted for their objectivity. I would challenge even that period. The range of acceptable opinion was from Truman Democrat to FDR Democrat. Anything outside that range was beyond the Pale. I think the 1960s (Vietnam and Watergate) broke that.
The internet has dramatically changed the system. I hesitate to say it "democratized" the media landscape but it has certainly broadened participation. Look at what media personalities do when they get fired from MSNBC, Fox, CNN, etc. (e.g. Chris Cuomo, Megan Kelly, Brian Stelter, Bill O'Reilly, (Keith Olbermann) They go to the internet.

I do not think the toothpaste is going back in the tube.

 

[crimsonaudio]

I do not think the toothpaste is going back in the tube.

Legacy media is in its death throes right now, with 'alternative' (read: independent) media leading the charge.

 

[Bamaro]

Legacy media is in its death throes right now, with 'alternative' (read: independent) media leading the charge.

And thats a change for the worse.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

And thats a change for the worse.

I disagree. I am skeptical of much of what I read in the indie media; I believe literally nothing reported by the western press.

 

[crimsonaudio]

And thats a change for the worse.

Agree to disagree - legacy media has had a stranglehold on information and have shown repeatedly that they cannot be trusted to reliably inform US citizens.

 

[Huckleberry]

Legacy media is in its death throes right now, with 'alternative' (read: independent) media leading the charge.

Unfortunately, the accuracy/objectivity of alternative media sources is at least as questionable as most of the legacy media. Regardless, people tend to gravitate toward the news that matches their personal agenda/beliefs and disregard the rest, often calling it “fake” news. Want to know which source is impartial? It's the one that favors Trump. Or hates Trump. Definitely one of those.

 

[Tidewater]

Unfortunately, the accuracy/objectivity of alternative media sources is at least as questionable as most of the legacy media. Regardless, people tend to gravitate toward the news that matches their personal agenda/beliefs and disregard the rest, often calling it “fake” news. Want to know which source is impartial? It's the one that favors Trump. Or hates Trump. Definitely one of those.

I agree 100%, but the magic era when ABC, CBS, ABC, WP, NYT were "unbiased" is more of a myth. (e.g. Walter Duranty) They just said they were objective. And a lot of people believed them.
There are a lot of news aggregating services now that put together stories from different sources or provide and assessment of the leanings of a particular story. That is still useful.

 

[cbi1972]

To go from recognizable and demonstrable bias to zero journalistic standards is not an improvement.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I don't like management stepping in to influence / dictate what gets published in a newspaper. But the WaPo "journalists" and editors brought this on themselves.

They are so clearly biased for one view that they quit any pretense of objectivity long ago. They are cheerleaders and have been for some time. Except these cheerleaders not only cheer for their team, they throw rocks at the opposition. Nobody outside of their own bubble trusts them if they say water is wet.

Journalistic standards? Please. The way they covered for Biden's mental decline is positively shameful. "Are you going to believe your self-anointed superiors (Us!) or your own lying eyes?" And they did it for years -- it wasn't a much more forgivable one-time lapse.

That said, I have no illusions that Bezos is advocating a for balanced press. He's advocating for his investment.

Like most legacy media outlets, the Washington Post is losing market value every day. Bezos is trying to reverse that. IOW, this is about money, nothing else.

Problem is, as others have already said, it's years if not decades too late. His employees long ago killed the one thing that would cause the general public to pay for the information they shell out or advertise in the paper -- credibility. They just keep heaping more dirt on its grave.

To repeat: They brought this on themselves.

 

[Bamaro]

Agree to disagree - legacy media has had a stranglehold on information and have shown repeatedly that they cannot be trusted to reliably inform US citizens.

But they still do a much better job than the alternative media who generally make no effort to adhere to any journalistic standards.

 

[mdb-tpet]

But they still do a much better job than the alternative media who generally make no effort to adhere to any journalistic standards.

There was a great Instagram post by a baby formula researcher showing how our new dependency AI is completely flawed, since there are so many nonsense "news" sites out there. She asked if there was High Fructose Corn Syrup in baby formula, and ChatGTP said yes, which is demonstrably false. But the chat aggregator of junk internet information doesn't know how to do its own research, so it's own conclusion is false. She then was told it was wrong, and then ChatGTP corrected itself. Will it remember the correction? I have no idea. What a mess.

With the narritive circle machines either unwilling to do their own fact checking, or worse yet willingly pushing false news stories, we're in a bad place journalistically. Losing hundreds of minorly to somewhat biased (almost all were corporate advertising funded) but high quality new organizations that are willing to retract stories they get wrong, we're in a really bad place. This loss of public media will allow for an authoritarian system to take over our country. Wait, too late. Nevermind. Keep doom scrolling.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

But they still do a much better job than the alternative media who generally make no effort to adhere to any journalistic standards.

Not any longer.

The coverup of the obvious mental decline of the man who could start WW3 was the final straw on that one.

A press that REALLY CARED about things like national security would have asked the OBVIOUS question the moment the Democrats pulled the bait and switch on candidates - "How in the hell can a guy who can't campaign for office still hold the nuclear football?"

And the proof they were always lying is that NOW Jake Tapper is gonna make money selling a book about the whole four-year thing along with the ONE GUY who was calling it out - and was dismissed as a right-wing crank despite being the ONLY one telling the truth.

We are now at, "So if I couldn't trust you to tell me the truth that I could see about Biden with my own two eyes, how do I know you're telling me the truth about the 2020 election, Covid, or anything else?"

 

[crimsonaudio]

But they still do a much better job than the alternative media who generally make no effort to adhere to any journalistic standards.

Where were these 'journalistic standards' when an obviously mentally incompetent Joe Biden was propped up by legacy media, almost unanimously? We basically had the (ahem, 'unelected') First Lady running the country for months/years but the legacy media and their 'journalistic standards' lied repeatedly to the American public about it?

Meanwhile, Special Counsel Robert Hur was roundly blasted by legacy media for suggesting Biden was a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory" - when everything he said turned out to be true.

That's just ONE example of the lack of integrity by the legacy media.

Sorry, we're going to just have to disagree on that point. Just because they have an official press pass doesn't mean they don't outright lie - they absolutely do.

 

[Bamaro]

Remind me who had to pay $787M for telling lies.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Remind me who had to pay $787M for telling lies.

A legacy media outlet.