this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
118 points (96.1% liked)

politics

19229 readers
2512 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Will Lewis, the company’s chief executive, said the paper was “returning to our roots” of not making endorsements for the office.

The Washington Post's chief executive told the newsroom on Friday that it would no longer endorse presidential candidates, breaking with decades of precedent at the newspaper.

"The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election," wrote Will Lewis, The Post's chief executive. "Nor in any future presidential election. We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates."

The Post has endorsed presidential candidates since 1976, Mr. Lewis wrote, when it gave its stamp of approval to Jimmy Carter, who went on to win the election. Before that, it generally did not make presidential endorsements, though it made an exception in 1952 to back Dwight Eisenhower.

Questions about whether The Post would endorse a candidate this year had spread for days. Some people speculated, without any proof, that the paper's billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos, was being cowed by a prospective Trump administration because his other businesses have many federal government contracts.

Non-paywall link

all 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 61 points 1 month ago

Are you telling me Jeff Bezos the billionaire didn't buy print media to make money?!

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 54 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I hope the editorial staff takes a literal collective shit on his desk before walking out

[–] DoucheBagMcSwag@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The humor columnist already went rogue and endorsed Harris

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The editorial cartoonist also made a rather pointed piece about it

Edit: screencap because lazy

[–] Fredselfish@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Not paying to view someone want to share. Not giving them a single dime.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 42 points 1 month ago (1 children)

WaPo wapo wapo. You helped trump in 2016. You did next to nothing in 2020, and here we are again.

It’s almost like you suck. Except that you do. Suck.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Let's not forget they demanded Biden step down.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago
[–] Atrichum@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago

I canceled my subscription. The billionaires have openly declared for fascism. Fuck em all and may God help us.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 26 points 1 month ago

Lots of people canceling their subscriptions as well.

[–] Paradachshund 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

"Nor in any future presidential election."

"Until it's someone Jeff wants, then we will definitely do it again."

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

"We listened to criticism from the previous election, and this empty byline wholeheartedly endorses Roger Stone and Stephen Miller over Presidentess Harris."

[–] MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is why Politico and ProPublica are better than The Washington Post

[–] TuEstUnePommeDeTerre@midwest.social 14 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Politico is just fascist propaganda since it was bought by Axel Springer.

Funnily enough, WaPo did a profile of the CEO of Axel Springer.

https://archive.ph/2OtO8

Oh these fucks are the reason bypass paywall clean needed to mirror to GitFlic. Fuck them hard

[–] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Chicken shit billionaires

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

I forgot their toady-in-chief was from the Murdoch slime factories.

[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago

The New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The New York Times:

Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The New York Times is generally reliable. WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns, while WP:NEWSBLOG should be used for the blogs on The New York Times's website. The 2018 RfC cites WP:MEDPOP to establish that popular press sources such as The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims.


MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America


Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/business/media/washington-post-presidential-endorsement.html?unlocked_article_code=1.U04.4xy1.SXUyJJW_VUN4
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support