WaPo and LA Times refuse to endorse

[sun rise]

Both of those papers suddenly refused to endorse either Harris or Trump. Clearly they'll be mouthpieces for Trump if he wins.

I've not read any numbers for those cancelling their subscriptions or resigning the LA paper, but 200,000 have cancelled WaPo https://www.npr.org/2024/10/28/nx-s...orsement-president-cancellations-resignations

I'm not one of them yet, but I'm looking for an alternative or maybe a couple depending on costs. I'm thinking of Reuters, AP News, Christian Science Monitor - minimal bias sources.

Any other suggestions?

 

[tytlyf]

I'm under the impression Jeff Bezos directly told the WaPo to not endorse this year (he's the owner)
The LAtimes is probably in a similar scenario

 

[Shaul]

I'm not sure it is clear that they will become mouthpieces for Trump, not at all. I'm also not sure why you think it is necessary to cancel your subscriptions. I suggest that you keep your subscriptions. You can cancel them later, after all. Having a variety of news sources is a good thing.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Both of those papers suddenly refused to endorse either Harris or Trump. Clearly they'll be mouthpieces for Trump if he wins.

I've not read any numbers for those cancelling their subscriptions or resigning the LA paper, but 200,000 have cancelled WaPo https://www.npr.org/2024/10/28/nx-s...orsement-president-cancellations-resignations

I'm not one of them yet, but I'm looking for an alternative or maybe a couple depending on costs. I'm thinking of Reuters, AP News, Christian Science Monitor - minimal bias sources.

Any other suggestions?

Thus i have heard. . Because they know she's a subpar candidate with absolutely no vision or anything else that would define her as being remotely capable for the office of president.

They have their own reputations and businesses to think about rather than get hopelessly associated with promoting her name, so they are dropping her like a hot potato so they don't go down the drain with her never to be seen again.

 

[We Never Know]

Both of those papers suddenly refused to endorse either Harris or Trump. Clearly they'll be mouthpieces for Trump if he wins.

I've not read any numbers for those cancelling their subscriptions or resigning the LA paper, but 200,000 have cancelled WaPo https://www.npr.org/2024/10/28/nx-s...orsement-president-cancellations-resignations

I'm not one of them yet, but I'm looking for an alternative or maybe a couple depending on costs. I'm thinking of Reuters, AP News, Christian Science Monitor - minimal bias sources.

Any other suggestions?

Also...

One-third of Washington Post’s editorial board steps down amid wave of canceled subscriptions over non-endorsement​

One-third of Washington Post’s editorial board steps down amid wave of canceled subscriptions over non-endorsement

New York (CNN) — The ripple effect of Jeff Bezos’s decision to block The Washington Post from endorsing a presidential candidate continues to reverberate through the newspaper, as a tidal

www.kxly.com

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't think newspapers should be endorsing candidates, anyway. I don't see why anyone cares about this.

 

[sun rise]

I'm not sure it is clear that they will become mouthpieces for Trump, not at all. I'm also not sure why you think it is necessary to cancel your subscriptions. I suggest that you keep your subscriptions. You can cancel them later, after all. Having a variety of news sources is a good thing.

I have a wide variety of news sources already but I pay for WaPo. Bezos clearly is afraid of what Trump has promised to do to anyone who opposes him in any way if he gets re-elected and chose to follow the path of media parroting the "party line" of the autocrat which Trump has promised to be.

I choose to stand with and support those who will oppose autocrats and there are many worthy outlets and Flipboard presents many many outlets.

 

[sun rise]

I don't think newspapers should be endorsing candidates, anyway. I don't see why anyone cares about this.

As was pointed out, if they had said no endorsement a year ago it would have not been notable. It was killing and endorsement right before the election that was the issue.

 

[F1fan]

I don't think newspapers should be endorsing candidates, anyway. I don't see why anyone cares about this.

In one respect I agree with you. This is surely the only thing I agree with you about, except that having pets as companions is a good thing.

The thing is is that many newspapers have editorial staffs that offer opinions on important issues. It tends to be the editorial staff that endorses the candidate, not necessarily the paper or its owner. This Bezos situation is unusual. He obviously felt some fear of Trump and ordered the editorial staff to not write an endorsement.

 

[Watchmen]

I don't think newspapers should be endorsing candidates, anyway. I don't see why anyone cares about this.

I politely disagree. It’s one of the key functions of the editorial staff to opine on the big issues.

 

[Shaul]

I have a wide variety of news sources already but I pay for WaPo. Bezos clearly is afraid of what Trump has promised to do to anyone who opposes him in any way if he gets re-elected and chose to follow the path of media parroting the "party line" of the autocrat which Trump has promised to be.

I choose to stand with and support those who will oppose autocrats and there are many worthy outlets and Flipboard presents many many outlets.

What is "clear" is that most media are the ones with the bias. Assuming you are correct then that is a reason to continue with the Washington Post, not end your subscription. Most media hate Trump. Trump did not destroy the media when he was previously President. There is no evidence he will "go after" them should he be elected again. I am quite confident that Trump will have more important things to do while President than petty vindictiveness against Bezos. Your anti-Trump paranoia is showing.

 

[Pogo]

What is "clear" is that most media are the ones with the bias. Assuming you are correct then that is a reason to continue with the Washington Post, not end your subscription. Most media hate Trump. Trump did not destroy the media when he was previously President. There is no evidence he will "go after" them should he be elected again. I am quite confident that Trump will have more important things to do while President than petty vindictiveness against Bezos. Your anti-Trump paranoia is showing.

Yeah, he wants to get rid of ABC's license first. Which is it, you don't believe anything he says or his threats are just trivial compared to what he will really do and that makes you happy?

 

[crossfire]

And the cancel culture strikes again...

 

[We Never Know]

Both of those papers suddenly refused to endorse either Harris or Trump. Clearly they'll be mouthpieces for Trump if he wins.

I've not read any numbers for those cancelling their subscriptions or resigning the LA paper, but 200,000 have cancelled WaPo https://www.npr.org/2024/10/28/nx-s...orsement-president-cancellations-resignations

I'm not one of them yet, but I'm looking for an alternative or maybe a couple depending on costs. I'm thinking of Reuters, AP News, Christian Science Monitor - minimal bias sources.

Any other suggestions?

From your link...

"If this decision had been made three years ago, two years ago, maybe even a year ago, that would've been fine,"

The thing is there was no Trump vs Harris three years ago, two years ago, or a year ago.
That came about 3 months ago.

 

[Pogo]

From your link...

"If this decision had been made three years ago, two years ago, maybe even a year ago, that would've been fine,"

The thing is there was no Trump vs Harris three years ago, two years ago, or a year ago.
That came about 3 months ago.

Duh, that is the point, it strikes as a very political move. WAPO has a group of editorial columnists that regularly opine together on all sorts of subjects.
To suddenly take this one off the table just when it is most important to them and the readers is at the very least interference with their jobs and even their banner line. "Democracy Dies in Darkness" . With much of the paper being local news, I read it as much for their national news and editorial analysis as any other paper. Factually they are very good, opinions are opinions and some are generally better argued than others, personally I find their several conservative opiners some times to be rather absurd but you get an idea of what the right side is thinking. And then there is George Will, one of my favorite opinion writers who probably does the best at skewering liberal positions of anybody.

As a paper, I appreciate it for both its news and opinions, to silence the editorial side suddenly in this manner is to reduce the paper's value. I can no longer be confident in it's ability to present thoughtful commentary along with basic facts.

If all that was wanted was basic facts then I would use AP, Reuters, Al Jazeera and the like.
We will see how it goes, I am not renewing my subscription at this point as it has apparently taken a step backward.

 

[sun rise]

What is "clear" is that most media are the ones with the bias. Assuming you are correct then that is a reason to continue with the Washington Post, not end your subscription. Most media hate Trump. Trump did not destroy the media when he was previously President. There is no evidence he will "go after" them should he be elected again. I am quite confident that Trump will have more important things to do while President than petty vindictiveness against Bezos. Your anti-Trump paranoia is showing.

This was not about Trump so your bias is clear. I return your insult that I'm insane to you. This was about Bezos and WaPo as I made clear in the OP.

There are many news outlets that are worthy and I'm exploring them now. But I do appreciate your attack. It reinforces my looking for alternatives to WaPo.

 

[Shaul]

This was not about Trump so your bias is clear. I return your insult that I'm insane to you. This was about Bezos and WaPo as I made clear in the OP.

There are many news outlets that are worthy and I'm exploring them now. But I do appreciate your attack. It reinforces my looking for alternatives to WaPo.

It was you that brought Trump into the discussion saying in your OP "Clearly they'll be mouthpieces for Trump if he wins."

Bezos has spoken to what is thinking is here,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/28/jeff-bezos-washington-post-trust/
Deal with it. Or don't. Nobody cares.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What is "clear" is that most media are the ones with the bias

Do you know what media is?

 

[Shaul]

Do you know what media is?

Yes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes.

Then what is it?