this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
619 points (100.0% liked)

politics

22730 readers
3185 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
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
619
It has fallen to me, the humor columnist, to endorse Harris for president (www.washingtonpost.com)
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by vovo@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/politics@lemmy.world
58 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Archive link

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 214 points 5 months ago (12 children)

This should be the very last piece of journalism that any one takes seriously from the Washington Post.

Both them and the NYT have shown their asses when it comes to just being propaganda mouth-pieces.

We need to re-democratize our culture, and get away from this world of billionaire possession of our cultural expression. They didn't make it, and its not something they can own if we don't allow it. We need to stop taking outlets like WP or NYT seriously.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 129 points 5 months ago (1 children)

NYT at least made the endorsement, the LA Times were the other cowards.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/30/opinion/editorials/kamala-harris-2024-endorsement.html

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 47 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I'm not really sure what the New York Times has to do with this. WaPo is owned by a billionaire trying to hedge his bets if Trump wins and decides to take vengeance by breaking up Amazon.

NYT is fully independent.

[–] tja@sh.itjust.works 56 points 5 months ago

Not sure what you mean with fully independent, but Wikipedia says "Though The New York Times Company is public, all voting shares are controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger Family Trust. "

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 31 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It's owned by a wealthy family, and it's reflected in what they choose to report, and more importantly what not to report.

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's not even true. It's a publicly traded company which means it's owned by the shareholders. Over 90% of those shares are held by financial institutions, meaning diversified investors.

I don't know how you could believe such a bald faced lie, and if you don't believe it then that's even worse.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 16 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The New York Times Company is majority-owned by the Ochs-Sulzberger family through elevated shares in the company's dual-class stock structure held largely in a trust, in effect since the 1950s;[118] as of 2022, the family holds ninety-five percent of The New York Times Company's Class B shares, allowing it to elect seventy percent of the company's board of directors.[119] Class A shareholders have restrictive voting rights.[120]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Organization

What you’ve written here is very misleading, bordering on incorrect, but does this distinction even matter? Both a singular billionaire and a collective of rich owners will manage the business to enhance their personal wealth, not for the common good of ordinary people. If Trump creates an incentive structure where businesses are penalized for going against his will, I think both types of management are rationally going to choose to obey him.

There needs to be a completely different type of management structure if we want leaders in the press to weigh things like the health of our democracy in their decisions.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Beardwin@lemmy.world 15 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I read the times nearly every day. Not sure what you mean by this. Can you expand? I find their reporting on trump to be pretty real. Their interview with John Kelly straight up calling trump a fascist is pretty damning. So…

[–] AugustWest@lemmy.world 26 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I can’t say for certain what they mean, but while their Trump coverage is solid, many people take issue with the way they are covering the Israel-Palestine conflict.

On another note, while I believe the John Kelly interview should be damning, if you believe it will make any difference you are living in a fantasy world.

[–] Beardwin@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

While I don’t necessarily disagree with either of your points, neither of them have anything to do with what I was responding to.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 4 points 5 months ago

They don't consume the main stream media. And that's a great thing because then you can make up whatever you want about what they've said or not said in order to confirm whatever belief you have about them.

[–] blazeknave@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

They platform bad people with op ed, legitimizing the ideas

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] elliot_crane@lemmy.world 68 points 5 months ago

Alexandra Petri is courageous, Jeff Bezos is a scared little shit, spread the news.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 47 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

That’s what our readers deserve and expect: that we are saying what we really think, reporting what we really see...

This is why I cancelled my subscription and switched to NYT. I need to be able to trust my news source, and I can't trust the post if all it took was a call from Bezos for them to bow and kneel.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 25 points 5 months ago (2 children)

This is why I cancelled my subscription and switched to NYT. I need to be able to trust my news source

Guess you're ignoring their genocide apologia and their constant pro-cop propaganda, then..

[–] neuracnu@lemmy.blahaj.zone 24 points 5 months ago

Oh oh, don’t forget about vocalization of anti-transgender viewpoints: https://www.poynter.org/commentary/2023/new-york-times-bias-reporting-transgender-people/

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I need integrity.

Carrying water for a fascist apartheid regime committing genocide is indicative of a lot of things. Integrity isn't one of them. Same goes for repeating whatever cops tell them to say.

I also respect a bad take far more than silence and cowardice in the face of adversity

There's honest bad takes and there's spreading deceptive misinformation. When it comes to Israel, cops, and other things that the establishment likes much more than the population in general, the NYT is constantly doing the latter at refusing to issue corrections.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago

As I have commented before, subscriptions are easy to cancel. I iust got this one, I'll read it and make my own mind if it is for me or not. For the moment, the only thing I have to make my decision is the irrefutable fact that the LA Times and the Washington Post both knelt down and ate the ass of their billionaire owners on request.

[–] cabbage@piefed.social 19 points 5 months ago

And to lie about their reasons for doing so to their readers.

[–] resin85@lemmy.ca 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I found the NYT's sanewashing of Trump irresponsible, so I took my WaPo subscription to The Guardian. It's a sad reflection on the US when a foreign paper has better reporting than any domestic source.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The Guardian is my next choice if NYT doesn't impress. That said, I tip The Guardian very often, so I probably send more money their way than if I had a subscription.

[–] BananaOnionJuice@lemmy.dbzer0.com 34 points 5 months ago

As one who mostly read the comics on newspapers when they were a thing, this could be the much needed endorsement for that target audience.

[–] Beardwin@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Reading through the comments I am curious… why do people think somebody gets into the news business, especially today? One doesn’t become a media tycoon for reporting objective news. They never have. They never will. They get into the business to control the message. Why is anybody surprised by this?

I read the times. Does it have bias? Yes. Literally impossible for any journal to not have bias. Objectivity is a myth. I think it’s more important to be able to see where that bias is, and then seek a counter balance to it.

Don’t read a single source. Otherwise you’re just another Fox News viewer.

[–] cabbage@piefed.social 28 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Nothing will be perfect, but there's an editorial process. Journalists do their work trying to speak truth to power, the editors make sure their claims are fact checked and well presented. Investors cash in on sales and can (unfortunately) have a say on strategic decisions of direction and hiring and firing, but they stay out of the editorial process.

The problem here is not who "gets into the news business". The WP had already written and approved the endorsement. Their journalists got into the industry to do journalism. It's a job many people dream of, not a huge mystery.

The problem is who has the money to buy a newspaper. And when the asshole billionaire ends up doing it, how do they interfer with the editorial process.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] aubeynarf 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is flat out wrong. There are absolutely more biased and less biased sources, and practices/values held by outlets with integrity to reduce bias.

Mixing them all into one pot so you can say everything is equal to Fox News and you can’t trust anything is some serious propaganda intended to weaken the idea that there is an objective reality.

Get out of here with that nonsense.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"'He might forget' is not enough to hang a country on."

Its extremist views like this that are going to destroy our nation. ;p

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Washington Post - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Washington Post:

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

Wikipedia search about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://archive.is/20241027014812/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/26/washington-post-endorses-kamala-harris-satire/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 20 points 5 months ago (4 children)

This article is literally proof that WaPo is right-wing propaganda and this stupid bot is still allowed to spam and call it leftist. Mods? Admins? Anybody?

[–] fine_sandy_bottom@lemmy.federate.cc 8 points 5 months ago

The mods get really defensive about the bot.

[–] Octospider@lemm.ee 3 points 5 months ago

It's also important the bot point out that it might be "center left" in the US. But what is "center left" in the US may be considered really right wing in many other countries.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments