this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
718 points (99.6% liked)

politics

19121 readers
2671 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Deterioration of the Washington Post’s subscriber base continued on Tuesday, hours after its proprietor, Jeff Bezos, defended the decision to forgo formally endorsing a presidential candidate as part of an effort to restore trust in the media.

The publication has now shed 250,000 subscribers, or 10% of the 2.5 million customers it had before the decision was made public on Friday, according to the NPR reporter David Folkenflik.

A day earlier, 200,000 had left according to the same outlet.

The numbers are based on the number of cancellation emails that have been sent out, according to a source at the paper, though the subscriber dashboard is no longer viewable to employees.

MBFC
Archive

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 196 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 105 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

He's getting exactly what he wanted; to corrupt and neuter another stronghold of journalistic integrity, and turn it into his propaganda network.

He doesn't care whether it makes money or not. He's already richer than god, makes more profit than its entire worth every single week, and if Trump wins his personal tax cuts will be in the tens of billions.

[–] Quill7513@slrpnk.net 13 points 3 weeks ago

even so, these are people who are realizing it isn't a valuable publication tuning out because this isn't when he got what we wanted. he got that a while ago

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 99 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

To him, I’m sure it’s an acceptable loss.

If Amazon Prime and AWS cancellations hit a significant level over this, that would have more of an impact.

[–] Artyom@lemm.ee 32 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Yup, he'll lose more revenue than those 10% WaPo subscribers under Harris. If Harris raises Amazon's taxes half a percent, this loss would become rounding error. Bezos wants Trump to win and wants to be Trump's friend for his own financial gain.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] goldteeth@lemmy.dbzer0.com 74 points 3 weeks ago

So not only has he quite literally decimated their readerbase but he's also made every other newspaper run the story that they were going to endorse Harris anyway, instead of likely just limiting that information to the handful of Washington Post subscribers that cared enough to check. Great quash, Jeff, you really shut that one down.

[–] madeinthebackseat@lemmy.world 72 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Direct your money towards better journalism.

I suggest ProPublica.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world 40 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

This is key. Follow journalists and editors who leave WaPo and support them wherever they go.

Otherwise this may just be playing into the hand of Bezos to cripple yet another outlet that speaks truth to power.

ProPublica does phenomenal work.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 53 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

I have commented how that decision led me to cancel my WaPo subscription which then snowballed into cancellations of Audible, Kindle Unlimited, Prime Video (ad-less), Amazon Photos, etc. Today I was chatting with my wife and she has now discarded the idea of using Blue Origin's satellite based internet access over Starlink. That's fifteen mobile response units where Jeff's space junk won't be considered.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 25 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Wait… your wife is ditching Kupier, which doesn’t exist yet, because of a single stunt Bezos pulled, but Starlink, run by the guy funding Trump’s election campaign, is still in the running?

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 12 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Ditching the idea of transitioning to Kupier once available, yes. For now, most of the units are suspended (zero cost) until needed. My hope is that other options become available.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 19 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Isn't Starlink Musk's outfit?

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Yes, and we are desperate to ditch it. The idea was to switch to ~~Blue Origin~~ Amazon's Project Kuiper as soon as it became available. Now it's fucked if we do and fucked if we don't.

That said, fourteen of the Starlink units are suspended until needed, which means no monthly payments.

EDIT: I mistakenly called the satellite project Blue Origin.

[–] Lauchs@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago

Totally fair. And there are definitely reasons to dislike Bezos but on the which of the two is worse... Going Musk over Bezos feels a little.like the folks claiming trump will be better for Palestineans. Bezos didn't let his paper endorse trump, Musk is full on bribing people, campaign rallying for trump etc.

But to each their own, like I said, plenty of reasons to dislike Bezos.

[–] Teils13@lemmy.eco.br 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, it is. It is very hard to escape having relations with capitalist conglomerates in most sectors, in some it is impossible. That is why having political control of the State is the only way of the working class to control the billionaires, if the economy side of society is not radically altered.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Blue Origin isn't planning any satellite internet projects.

There is Amazon's Project Kuiper, which aims to bring Starlink-like Internet using a constellation of 3,000 satellites, but currently they have zero satellites in orbit (and the two prototypes they launched were ULA launches).

If/when Kuiper matures, Bezos owns less of Amazon than Musk owns of SpaceX, so if your goal is to keep as little of your money out of these men's hands as you can, Kuiper might be the way to go.

[–] JoMiran@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Great information, thank you. My use of the Blue Origin name is my mistake. Regardless, the original goal was to ditch Starlink. Hopefully we will be able to do so.

[–] MataVatnik@lemmy.world 38 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Besos wipes his ass with those 250K subscribers. What he needs is to be stripped of his wealth.

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Sure he needs to be taxed into dust. But he doesn't own the WaPo because it's making him rich. He runs it because it's a propaganda machine for him.

He lost 10% of his subscribers, almost immediately, when he tried to use it that way openly. Which says:

  • it's now a 10% less effective propaganda machine (and that number will keep growing)
  • it's possible that it was never effective in the first place

Given those two propositions, he might just unload it, which would be nice for the rest of us.

[–] MataVatnik@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, its just I can't believe I'm living in cyberpunk shitty guilded age 2.0

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] blattrules@lemmy.world 38 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It’s good to see the system working like it should for the free press for once; they made a terrible decision and they’re paying for it. Now, if we can just collectively turn our backs on all the disreputable sources and start promoting the reputable ones, we might fix a broken system.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 31 points 3 weeks ago

I really wish his wife had gotten the WaPo in the divorce.

[–] robocall@lemmy.world 28 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Billionaires never do anything benevolent. I speculate Bezos is refused the endorsement in case Trump wins and holds a grudge.

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 25 points 3 weeks ago

Nah, Bezos wants Trump. Lower taxes, less regulation. He knows the backlash would be even worse if he forced an endorsement.

It really is all about the fuckin money.

[–] spacemanspiffy@lemmy.world 27 points 3 weeks ago

Finally some good fucking news.

[–] expatriado@lemmy.world 21 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

should be paired with Amazon Prime cancelation for the double punch

[–] patrick@lemmy.bestiver.se 20 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

This was a potential explanation as to why Bezos did that https://lemmy.haley.io/post/1058450

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Do we really need an explanation as to why capitalists are okay with supporting fascists?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

But not necessarily for the reasons you think.

It was pretty much exactly the reasons I thought.

Note the other facet is not just the odds being close, but the consequences being different. If Trump wins, these people know he will be vindictive. In his first term he killed a $10 billion deal with Amazon due to WaPo's coverage and taking it out on Bezos at large. If Harris wins, then she's expected to be more proper, so kowtowing to Trump wouldn't have a downside. So bad behavior to a point is rewarded even in a good outcome, because the good behavior response doesn't call to be all pissy over this sort of thing.

Of course, would be mitigated if huge businesses chock full of ulterior motives didn't outright control big journalism outlets.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JaymesRS 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

I don’t imagine they thought that this would literally decimate their subscriber base.*

  • ~yes I made the same joke twice in two different communities. It’s not often you get to use the literal definition of decimate.~
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] mercano@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago

So not only do they loose the direct revenue from the subscribers, but because the readership has fallen significantly & publicly, advertisement revenue is going to fall, too, as the advertisers know the paper isn’t reaching as many readers.

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 12 points 3 weeks ago

bleed some more, bozo, and wapo will drop from 3rd to 4th (print circulation probably already has) largest, behind usa today

[–] modifier@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 weeks ago

In a way this is better than an endorsement would've been. Especially because it's acknowledged who the would-be recipient of the endorsement would have been.

[–] RelativeArea0@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago
[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Sadly, that's chump change for him. 250k sub's at $120/yr comes out to $30M/yr. That's ~ 0.015% of his net wealth. Better than nothing though.

[–] Skua@kbin.earth 28 points 3 weeks ago

I believe that the main reason for people as wealthy as him to own newspapers is not the money, it's the influence. This does hurt that

load more comments
view more: next ›