This sort of reminds me of the arguments over using racial diversity in university admissions. Using race as the main decider for admissions is certainly discriminatory, and would lead to the admission of unqualified candidates, but there is nothing wrong with considering racial diversity when selecting among many equally qualified candidates.
If her cartoons were not top notch she wouldn’t have won, regardless of her other actions, but given that…
It is not unreasonable to choose the one who took a stand against censorship at significant personal sacrifice.
I would also reiterate what others have said that this isn’t about politics or at least not directly. It only political is politically tinged because one of the parties is attempting to pressure the press. If this happened 4 years ago and it was Biden was pressuring Bezos it would still be in the Pulizter’s interest to honor her.
There’s absolutely no indication this is what happened. The award is for excellence and work which made an impact.
Someone else got the same prize for photos of the Trump assassination attempt - the iconic photos of his bleeding with his fist up, his shoes left behind, and more. Was it awarded because it was praising Trump?
The Washington Post’s top standards editor Thursday decried “frustrating” errors in its new AI-generated personalized podcasts, whose launch has been met with distress by its journalists.
Earlier this week, the Post announced that it was rolling out personalized AI-generated podcasts for users of the paper’s mobile app. In a release, the paper said users will be able to choose preferred topics and AI hosts, and could “shape their own briefing, select their topics, set their lengths, pick their hosts and soon even ask questions using our Ask The Post AI technology.”
But less than 48 hours since the product was released, people within the Post have flagged what four sources described as multiple mistakes in personalized podcasts. The errors have ranged from relatively minor pronunciation gaffes to significant changes to story content, like misattributing or inventing quotes and inserting commentary, such as interpreting a source’s quotes as the paper’s position on an issue.
“Why should we hire people to make up stories and lazily report things without proper fact-checking, when we can get a computer program to do it for us?”
Incidentally, Jeff Bezos loses about 100 million dollars a year on The Washington Post. He’s worth about 250 billion dollars. In about the year 4526, he will be bankrupt.
For what it’s worth, at least the charade is over.
They’re no longer pretending not to be doing hard propaganda for Trump.
Put them on the same rung as Faux News and call it a day.
Do you read all of The Washington Post every day? I do. The news items in it make clear what a terrible president Trump has been. There are a variety of editorials, opinion articles, and letters to the editors. The clear majority of them are against Trump.
The concept that what Donald has done is Wonderful because Maduro is a bad guy is “logic” fully worthy of Donald himself. So the Washington Post can now be known as the paper that endorses actions such as ‘burning down an orphanage because the manager is mean.’
Have you ever read anything in The Washington Post besides the items mentioned in this thread? I read it every day in the paper and ink version that’s delivered to my door. The news articles in it make it clear how bad a president Trump is. They don’t feel it’s necessary to call Trump names or exaggerate anything. This makes it better than the videos on YouTube that I listen to most days which also make it clear that he’s a bad president but seem to think that it’s necessary to show how funny the people who films them and talks in them are. The editorials, opinion pieces, and letters in the paper, which are not on the same pages as the news articles, have a variety of political stances. The clear majority of them are opposed to Trump.
