• TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    162
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    12 hours ago

    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.

    • gedaliyah@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      12 hours ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        9 hours 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 hours ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          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.

    • Beardwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      12 hours ago

      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…

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours 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.

      • AugustWest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 hours ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 hours ago

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

    • Bone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I don’t know why people would pay for the news when they aren’t on your side.

      • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        News are not supposed to take sides, they should present facts regardless of who (dis)likes them

        • Mirshe@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Except news outlets get so caught up in being “neutral” and “fair” that they won’t accurately report on things when shit gets really fucking bad like now. As an example, NYT basically made no mention of the concentration camps when they were publishing during WWII, or it was relegated to back-page short articles, because they were afraid of being accused of “bias” if they reported the truth, which was “hey Germany is literally carrying out a genocide while waging this war.” You see it NOW with tons of media outlets going “Donald Trump suggests immigrants don’t belong here” when what was actually said was “we should unleash the military to drive them out by force.”

          • frezik@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 hours ago

            I always liked this quote from Hunter S Thompson, from his scathing eulagy of Nixon:

            Some people will say that words like scum and rotten are wrong for Objective Journalism – which is true, but they miss the point. It was the built-in blind spots of the Objective rules and dogma that allowed Nixon to slither into the White House in the first place. He looked so good on paper that you could almost vote for him sight unseen. He seemed so all-American, so much like Horatio Alger, that he was able to slip through the cracks of Objective Journalism. You had to get Subjective to see Nixon clearly, and the shock of recognition was often painful.

            Someone needs to stand up and say that people like Nixion and Trump are scum human beings, are not worthy of the respect of objective journalism, and we should stop pretending otherwise.

        • Bone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 hours ago

          Do you think that’s what’s happening when you look out at the landscape of news reporting today? When the owner’s interests get in the way of presenting facts I believe it all goes out the window. If it was just about newsworthiness I think you’d have a point.

  • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    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.

  • Beardwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    23
    ·
    10 hours ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      9 hours ago

      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.

  • Media Bias Fact Checker@lemmy.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    13 hours ago
    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.News

    https://archive.is/20241027014812/https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/26/washington-post-endorses-kamala-harris-satire/

    Media Bias Fact Check | bot support