A friend thinks that Trump threatened to take away Bezos’ space program. That’s something Trump could do pretty easily. (Unlike throwing Bezos in prison, which i think would be hard.)
Anyway, i agree that these cuts mystify me. Especially sports. Okay, you save money by not flying reporters to the Olympics. And maybe your can resell the tickets you already bought? But a lot of people subscribe for sports and local news.
Also, it’s the sort of thing I’d expect Trump to do well before throwing a rich man in jail. He thinks in terms of “rich men deserve privilege” too, naturally.
I was just making the point that he could. Because I think many people - including especially Trump’s wealthy supporters - miss the fact that under the fascist dictatorship they want, their money won’t protect them anymore.
I think originally Bezos bought the Post as a combination vanity/philanthropy project with relatively good intentions. It’s only when the political landscape changed to the point informing the public became a liability that could affect the rest of his business empire that he took an active hand in destroying it.
Yes, I’m pretty certain that’s why he bought it. And until something happened (which i think was Trump threatening him in some way, when it was clear Trump was likely to win) he was very hands-off, and it was a good deal for the Post.
It would have to be fuck-off money. I take such billions as I can have in actual cash and just retire, hand over the businesses to someone else to care about who’s pleased.
Will Lewis has resigned.
“Mission accomplished!”
I wonder if this was the plan all along.
Becoming a right wing propaganda outlet is the opposite of sustaining yourself as a non partisan news purveyor.
The Post when Republican legislators pass a mid-decade gerrymander; this is fine
The Post when Democrats call a referendum to do the same thing: DEMOCRACY ITSELF IS IN PERIL
In the Atlantic, Elizabeth Bruenig has written an absolutely devastating article targeting the anti-vaxx movement, entitled
“This Is How a Child Dies of Measles” [gift link]
It’s written in the second person. For instance:
“Your daughter behaves normally over the next week while the virus slowly spreads inside her…”
It ends with the disclosure:
“This story is based on extensive reporting and interviews with physicians, including those who have cared directly for patients with measles.”
The Washington Post covers this article with the hot take to end all hot takes:
“The Atlantic’s Essay about Measles Was Gut-Wrenching. Some Readers Feel Deceived.” [paywalled]
“Some critics and physicians said Elizabeth Bruenig’s second-person account of a mother confronting a child’s death from measles felt misleading once they learned the story was reported fiction.”
It seems the Right’s fact/fiction detector is terminally broken. It thinks Faux is fact.
I wouldn’t put Liz Bruenig on either the right or the left, but it’s not a surprise to me that she wrote this. Certainly a scare article about what really bad things could happen when you fail to vaccinate feels more left.
You know, that disclaimer should have been at the beginning, not the end. A story that’s written about “one” person that’s actually a medley of the experiences of a several real people is an okay narrative form, but it should be presented as what it is.
I’d definitely agree with you if this essay said, in the past tense,
“X and Y happened to so-and-so.”
However, this essay says,
“First, X happens to your daughter, and soon afterward, Y will happen to your daughter.”
That (coupled with the headline “This Is How A Child Dies of Measles”) leaves much less room for misunderstanding. The essay is laying out a fact-based hypothetical.
Okay. I should probably read the essay before critiquing it.
Start doing that regularly and you’ll have to turn in your internet commenting card.
If I interpret a second-person article in a national publication as addressing me, personally, and then feel deceived when the events it describes are inaccurate about my personal life, I need to be evaluated for schizophrenia. No mentally competent person would feel deceived by such a format.
We are talking about complaints from the right wing, of course.
Indeed–but from the right wing chattering class, which means the complaints are dishonest. I absolutely do not believe that reporter Scott Nover thinks anyone was deceived by the Atlantic’s article: he was just casting stupid shade, and hoping he could deceive people.
I might fall over dead from this surprising revelation.
(@MeanOldLady once said something like “Monocle pops into tea” or something, that I thought was hilarous)