• vegeta@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    Then wait until a non-election year to do it

    Democracy dies in cowardice

    • Nougat@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      ·
      10 days ago

      WaPo endorsed other candidates for office in this very election cycle. “All of a sudden” when the editorial desk wants to endorse Harris, it’s “OOOHHHHHHH NOOOOOOO WE HAVE TO BE INDEPENDENT!”

  • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    8 days ago

    If literally nobody gives a shit about the endorsement then blocking it is a pointless gesture and not going to increase credibility with anyone by his own admission, Is what I would say if it wasn’t obviously another billionaire oligarch putting his finger on the scale of democracy then saying it isn’t or it’s justified.

  • Snowclone@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 days ago

    Guys, relax, what I did was totally the right thing to do, The New York Times is about to post 5 articles about it… or else.

    • Papa Money
  • BigAssFan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    8 days ago

    The number of subscriptions has gone down by 10% already. That’s what happens when billionaires interfere with media, apparently.

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    10 days ago
    NBC News - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

    Information for NBC News:

    Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that NBC News is generally reliable for news. See also: MSNBC


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


    Search topics on Ground.News

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jeff-bezos-defends-washington-post-endorsement-decision-rcna177742

    Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

  • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    10 days ago

    Now more than ever the world needs a credible, trusted, independent voice…

    I’m not sure he understands the meaning of “independent”.

  • orcrist@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    Lol. It wasn’t the “Washington Post” who decided that. It was the owner.

  • ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    10 days ago

    Dear God, his transformation into Dr Evil is nearly complete!

    “I’ll give you an endorsement for Harris… For ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS!! Muahahaha!!!”

  • affiliate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    9 days ago

    how exactly is it that any kind of endorsement creates a “perception of bias”? is he trying to argue that all opinions are biased? and if so, why doesn’t he say anything to support that claim?

  • GraniteM@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    9 days ago

    If there are two parties, and one says it’s raining, and the other says it isn’t, it’s not the news media’s job to give an unbiased report on the debate, it’s their job to look out the fucking window and say whether or not it’s raining.

  • echo@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    153
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 days ago

    presidential endorsements create the “perception of bias”

    You know what else creates a perception of bias? Meeting with Trump right before withholding the Harris endorsement.

    Also… bullshit… it’s amazing how many people just get their marching instructions from their preferred newspaper. They don’t even pay attention. They will literally tell canvassers that they will decide who they are voting for based on what the paper says.

    • 9point6@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 days ago

      The Washington Post already carries a perception of bias for the Republican party, a Harris endorsement would have potentially balanced that somewhat.

      This statement doesn’t even stand up to the flimsiest scrutiny

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      10 days ago

      They don’t even pay attention. They will literally tell canvassers that they will decide who they are voting for based on what the paper says.

      I had a conversation with my dad recently about it. he’s been a life long republican. In any case I had to remind him that I told him in 2016 that Trump was quoting hitler almost-verbatim. The only difference was that a) it was a more or less direct translation into english, and b) ‘jews’ were exchanged for ‘muslims’.

      he also kept demanding sources and I’m like ‘the source is trump speaking. trump said that himself. this is a direct quote’. (for example the ‘Dictator on day one’ comment.) same goes for political violence. same goes for everything in the 2025;

      like fucking hell, it’s exhausting. I tossed in the source on Fox being a right-wing propaganda rag for good measure.

      • A Phlaming Phoenix@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 days ago

        When a conservative asks you for sources, they do so in bad faith. They don’t care about engaging with reality. It’s a deflection tactic.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          9 days ago

          Yup. That’s exactly why he’s voting for Harris this time around. All those bad faith arguments.

          No, but it took a while to get him off Fox News. He didn’t vote in the 2020 presidential election either (or maybe he voted for some other republican jackass. I forget.)

          He grew up thoroughly republican. It’s taken a while to break the brainwashing, but it can be done.

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          They will never even look at the source. It goes beyond simple lack of curiosity, their brain has created a sort of defense mechanism that will prevent them from ever actually comprehending that they could be wrong about something. So they will do everything to avoid being in a situation that could lead to them learning something new.

          Because nothing is more important than never being wrong about anything, ever.