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

politics

19132 readers
4077 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

(page 2) 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 12 points 1 day 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 1 day 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.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GelatinGeorge@lemmy.world 1 points 22 hours ago
[–] Zier@fedia.io 1 points 1 day ago

That is an annual loss of $30 million. ha ha

[–] ohellidk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago

let's gooooo!!

[–] GelatinGeorge@lemmy.world 0 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

[https://static.wixstatic.com/media/5897e0_5cabc11d2cc34f059113cfb338411756~mv2_d_1772_1311_s_2.jpg/v1/fill/w_980,h_725,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_auto/5897e0_5cabc11d2cc34f059113cfb338411756~mv2_d_1772_1311_s_2.jpg@]

[–] Charlatan@lemm.ee -1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (5 children)

I gotta be honest... I don't think news papers should officially endorse a candidate. Report on the issues accurately and call it a day. It reduces the perception of bias.

load more comments (5 replies)

The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Guardian:

Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable. The Guardian's op-eds should be handled with WP:RSOPINION. Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics. See also: The Guardian blogs.
Wiki: mixed - Most editors say that The Guardian blogs should be treated as newspaper blogs or opinion pieces due to reduced editorial oversight. Check the bottom of the article for a "blogposts" tag to determine whether the page is a blog post or a non-blog article. See also: The Guardian.


MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom


Media Bias/Fact Check - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for Media Bias/Fact Check:

Wiki: unreliable - There is consensus that Media Bias/Fact Check is generally unreliable, as it is self-published. Editors have questioned the methodology of the site's ratings.


MBFC: Least Biased - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Very High - United States of America


Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/oct/29/washington-post-subscriber-cancellations
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›