Bezos made decision to kill Harris endorsement, reports Washington Post

[+OverSword]

Quote

 

Jeff Bezos, the billionaire owner of The Washington Post, personally made the decision to kill an endorsement of Vice President Harris for president that the newspaper’s editorial board had drafted, the outlet reported Friday.

Citing two sources it said had been briefed on the sequence of events who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly, the Post reported its editorial board had drafted an endorsement of Harris that was to be published before the election.

“The decision not to publish was made by The Post’s owner — Amazon founder Jeff Bezos — according to the same sources,” the newspaper reported.

 

Link

And then right after that this story:

 

Quote

 

Washington Post reels from Bezos decision to not endorse

The Washington Post is reeling from a decision to abstain from endorsing a presidential candidate in the 2024 election, a move that was reportedly made by billionaire owner Jeff Bezos after its editorial board drafted an endorsement of Vice President Harris.  

The decision has sparked widespread anger inside the Post’s newsroom and earned the Amazon founder sharp condemnation from voices in Democratic politics and the media.

 

Link

Funny how both the Hill and the WaPo both lost their **** over this

Edited October 25 by OverSword

[+and-then]

How odd.  I guess when you are that rich, it doesn't matter who you offend  

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

If a newspaper is meant to be ideologically neutral, then they should not be advocating for one candidate over another, should they not? 

[+and-then]

8 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

If a newspaper is meant to be ideologically neutral, then they should not be advocating for one candidate over another, should they not? 

That's not the way it works when Leftists are involved.  Bezos better tread lightly.  His membership in the elite may get canceled, no matter how much money he has.  I have no idea why he decided to take this stand, but good on 'em.

[Edumakated]

53 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

If a newspaper is meant to be ideologically neutral, then they should not be advocating for one candidate over another, should they not? 

The WaPo has been anything but neutral.  Well known propagandist leftist rag.  Maybe Bezos is going to take the paper in a new direction.

However, IIRC, Bezos was not a big Trump fan initially.  Maybe he has seen the light.

[Buzz_Light_Year]

[Unusual Tournament]

2 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

If a newspaper is meant to be ideologically neutral, then they should not be advocating for one candidate over another, should they not? 

By your rationale, Musk is gonna be imprisoned for his pro-Trump support. I doubt that but it’s a measure of the democracy a country has and the measure of the man to speak their mind. Bezos is sitting on the fence. Everyone hates a fence sitter 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

35 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

By your rationale, Musk is gonna be imprisoned for his pro-Trump support. I doubt that but it’s a measure of the democracy a country has and the measure of the man to speak their mind. Bezos is sitting on the fence. Everyone hates a fence sitter 

Musk owns a newspaper does he? 

[Unusual Tournament]

4 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Musk owns a newspaper does he? 

He own’s X and he’s a financial donor for Trump and actively campaigning for the orange guy 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

5 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

He own’s X and he’s a financial donor for Trump and actively campaigning for the orange guy 

X isn’t a newspaper, nor is it pretending to be impartial. 
If a newspaper isn’t impartial it’s not a newspaper, it’s a propaganda mechanism. 
If a social media platform isn’t impartial it’s a social media platform that caters to a certain audience (and a propaganda mechanism). 

[Unusual Tournament]

10 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

X isn’t a newspaper, nor is it pretending to be impartial. 
If a newspaper isn’t impartial it’s not a newspaper, it’s a propaganda mechanism. 
If a social media platform isn’t impartial it’s a social media platform that caters to a certain audience (and a propaganda mechanism). 

I disagree with Musk’s support for Trump but I respect free speech. X is social media that in some ways, due to it fluidity, more accurate than slow moving opinionated legacy news. 
 

Which brings me to my next point. We’re all seen the media barons like Murdoch, Bloomberg and Co. are their lack of impartiality. These dudes have destroyed governments and institutions with their monopolistic predatory practices. Social media as I see it is the only accurate and impartial way to get to the truth by finding the common ground between both views. Something legacy news cannot do due to it having to answer to one person. The Washington Post was pro-democracy and establishment for a long time until Bezos decided it doesn’t suit his new political position and agenda. So you’re only reading Bezos’s opinions not the facts

Edited October 27 by Unusual Tournament

[+OverSword]

5 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

If a newspaper is meant to be ideologically neutral, then they should not be advocating for one candidate over another, should they not? 

Most influential news outlets in the US endorse a presidential candidate.

[+DieChecker]

8 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

If a newspaper is meant to be ideologically neutral, then they should not be advocating for one candidate over another, should they not? 

This is true.

However, it is also true the company allowed a complete takeover of the controlling editorial staff by liberal democrats. 

Thus the follow on articles by the staff complaining out loud, as it were, and fingers all pointing at Bezos.

He bought it more than ten years ago. And was fine with it being a leftist tool till now.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

59 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

This is true.

However, it is also true the company allowed a complete takeover of the controlling editorial staff by liberal democrats. 

Thus the follow on articles by the staff complaining out loud, as it were, and fingers all pointing at Bezos.

He bought it more than ten years ago. And was fine with it being a leftist tool till now.

Which raises the question … how the hell did Harris **** in Bezos’ cornflakes? 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

4 hours ago, OverSword said:

Most influential news outlets in the US endorse a presidential candidate.

And Time Magazine thought Hitler was great. 

[psyche101]

On 10/26/2024 at 7:27 AM, OverSword said:

Link

And then right after that this story:

 

Link

Funny how both the Hill and the WaPo both lost their **** over this

Of course they will dish dirt, they can point fingers. 

Bezos is hedging his bets I'd say, with the race so close he doesn't need Trump on his case again. 

 

Trump Has Already Punished Jeff Bezos Over the Washington Post’s Independence

When Donald Trump first ran for president, he began to threaten that Amazon and Jeff Bezos would pay the price. “If I become president — oh, do they have problems. They’re going to have such problems,” he warned. Trump’s grievance with Amazon was centered on Bezos’s ownership of the Washington Post, a connection the president did nothing to disguise. He raged at what he called the “Amazon Washington Post,” claiming spuriously that it had avoided “internet taxes.” In 2018, Gabriel Sherman reported that Trump was “obsessed” with retribution against Bezos for the Post’s coverage.

“Every hour, we’re getting calls from reporters from the Washington Post asking ridiculous questions,” he ranted at one point, “And I will tell you: This is owned as a toy by Jeff Bezos, who controls Amazon. Amazon is getting away with murder, taxwise. He’s using the Washington Post for power.”

In 2019, Trump found his lever. Amazon was due to receive a $10 billion cloud-computing contract from the Pentagon. The Pentagon suddenly shifted course and denied Amazon the contract. A former speechwriter for Defense Secretary James Mattis reported that Trump had directed Mattis to “screw Amazon.”

 

Trump’s Attack on Amazon May Be His Most Egregious Abuse of Power Yet

Edited October 27 by psyche101

[+DieChecker]

7 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Which raises the question … how the hell did Harris **** in Bezos’ cornflakes? 

Yeah, I read it was because Bezos doesn't want a "potential" President Trump having executive decision making powers to financially hurt Bezos interests.

Potential new Amazon deals with the government and such.

[+OverSword]

4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Of course they will dish dirt, they can point fingers. 

Bezos is hedging his bets I'd say, with the race so close he doesn't need Trump on his case again

So it couldn’t possibly be due to an extreme plunge in readership before purchased by Bezos that is the cause of not wanting to be viewed as so prejudice to one side rather than a neutral news institution?  
I think it’s because the post was tanking due to functioning as a left wing propagandist machine and now they’re trying to change that image.

Notably the Los Angeles times, another institution known for left bias has also chose not to endorse a candidate. 

[+DieChecker]

13 minutes ago, OverSword said:

So it couldn’t possibly be due to an extreme plunge in readership before purchased by Bezos that is the cause of not wanting to be viewed as so prejudice to one side rather than a neutral news institution?  
I think it’s because the post was tanking due to functioning as a left wing propagandist machine and now they’re trying to change that image.

Notably the Los Angeles times, another institution known for left bias has also chose not to endorse a candidate. 

CNN was trying to go centrist for a while too.

I applauded it at the time (2022), under Chris Licht. But he left in the middle of 2023, after his uber leftist employees turned on him en mass. CNN than went back to pandering to the left.

Wonder if the Washington Post staff will work to get rid of Bezos now.

[+OverSword]

35 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

CNN was trying to go centrist for a while too.

I applauded it at the time (2022), under Chris Licht. But he left in the middle of 2023, after his uber leftist employees turned on him en mass. CNN than went back to pandering to the left.

Wonder if the Washington Post staff will work to get rid of Bezos now.

The editorial staff seems pretty butt hurt about it but who could be easier to replace than an opinion writer?

[godnodog]

Journalists in the US seem to have gone crazy ever since they realized they don't have then influence they thought they had.

i don't think much of Bezos or Musk, but what makes journalists think they have the right to decide billionaires can support??? It's not a oligarchy (yet)

[+Razman]

18 hours ago, Edumakated said:

The WaPo has been anything but neutral.  Well known propagandist leftist rag.  Maybe Bezos is going to take the paper in a new direction.

However, IIRC, Bezos was not a big Trump fan initially.  Maybe he has seen the light.

Maybe he sees better days with Trump and his pocketbook. Strange how since the Dems want the billionaires to pay more and Trump tends to go for billionaire tax breaks , that these billionaires are jumping to his side.

Edited October 27 by Razman

[Gromdor]

20 hours ago, Edumakated said:

The WaPo has been anything but neutral.  Well known propagandist leftist rag.  Maybe Bezos is going to take the paper in a new direction.

However, IIRC, Bezos was not a big Trump fan initially.  Maybe he has seen the light.

The billionaire globalists/multinationals do seem to be supporting Trump.  It makes me wonder if they know something we don't.  

In a slighty related topic.  It seems that Trump and his backers are leaning towards the "cashless society" route via support of crypto.  

Personally, I think that since they know Trump is 78 and in shaky health/mental health they plan to use him as a vessel to propel some sort of agenda of their own- and the globalist in me kind of wonders if that is really bad.  I probably won't vote for Trump still, but I kind of want to see what the end result of what is in the background.

[Tatetopa]

21 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

If a newspaper is meant to be ideologically neutral, then they should not be advocating for one candidate over another, should they not? 

Its a little late for any media source to claim neutrality.  Its like trying to recapture virginity.

[Tatetopa]

14 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

The billionaire globalists/multinationals do seem to be supporting Trump.  It makes me wonder if they know something we don't.  

Nope.  They just don't have to live middle class lives in America.  They don't share the same hopes and fears as us peasants. Their choices are to get rich under Harris or to get fabulously rich under Trump.