Washington Post and

[Yossarian]

As a person who believes strongly in personal liberties and free markets, I still find this offensive. Just smacks of "I've got mine and don't anybody say anything that would make someone think they can take a piece of it."

https://www.wsj.com/business/media/b...rkets-48c35abf

He owns it, he can do what he wants with it. Was there ever as time the major papers had a sense of civic duty? Or was that a facade?

[catherine]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention! I read the article in your link--and yes, it is now pushing one area of focus.

"He who controls the media controls the minds of the public"

This is another front for total control, IMHO, just as the "curating" of reporters selected to cover the WH is a front for total control. It's up to the everyday citizens to stay informed on a variety of issues at this point, as it always has, of course, but it will be harder now.

In short, I find this move by Bezos offensive, too. But as you said, it's his paper. And my right to unsubscribe, which I did when he came in .

[Rogar]

At least the NYT seems to be staying their usual course, although their journalistic opinions can sometimes be questioned. Same goes for public radio and TV, which I support with donations. I've not seen any crackdowns or threat to them, yet. I'm getting the impression that Bezos is just another broligarch defending his empire.

Since I can't read the WSJ without subscription, NPR did a similar article.

"There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader's doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views," Bezos said. "Today, the internet does that job."

https://www.npr.org/2025/02/26/nx-s1...pinion-section

Also from a Politico article,

"Back in the 1980s, there was a trend in Washington of conservatives adorning their cars with a bumper sticker that read: “I Don’t Believe The Post.” I suspect those could fetch a pretty penny on the resale market today — thanks not to the people who write for the publication, but the person who owns it."

[LDAHL]

“Personal liberties and free markets” doesn’t sound so outrageous to me. It’s not like almost every big traditional outlet has been open to every viewpoint to begin with. Hell, the WaPo used to hold Jen Rubin out as their conservative. I find it especially odd to be hearing from NPR about the need for other perspectives.

If people are all that eager for the anti-freedom viewpoint let them eat Substack.

[early morning]

Wait what?? "anti-freedom viewpoint?" wtf is THAT? So, is being anti-racist anti-freedom? Pro-woman= antifreedom? Wanting to see more than anti-people of color, anti-immigrant, anti-woman/anti-LGBTQ+ opinions =anti-freedom?

Not vetting news sources= freedom?

Not discussing anything other than "personal liberties and free markets" IS outrageous, and I firmly believe media outlets DO have a civic duty to provide fair reporting- and that their opinion pages are exactly that - opinions. Those two should not be conflated. Our founding fathers believed that the press was key to our democratic ideals, thus the including of freedom of the press in the First Amendment. Not that the oligarches care two whits about the US Constitution to begin with. . .

[ejchase]

All "anti-freedom" means out of the mouth of Jeff Bezos is people who protest a tax cut mainly for billionaires that will cost us 4.5 trillion dollars over a decade, funded by cutting medical research, Medicaid, education, and cutting the federal workforce down to a skeleton crew that will not be able to cover services we take for granted. All it is is taking from the working and middle classes to give to the 1%.

The total federal employee annual payroll in 2022 was $271 billion. The annual cost of permanently extending Trump's tax cuts is $400 billion.

You want to talk about waste? How about extending the tax cuts for a billionaire who spends 4.5 billion dollars to be in space for 7 minutes? Is that really where you want your taxes to go? Don't be fooled. Tax cuts ARE spending.

https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/con...y-better-uses/

[early morning]

If people are all that eager for the anti-freedom viewpoint let them eat Substack.

I was sort of wondering what LDHL thought was the anti-freedom viewpoint.

But sure, from the oligarchical/fascist/trumpist viewpoint, of course Anti-freedom is anything that would curtail the income of billionaires and help J.Q. Public (i.e. the worker-bee / serf class). Tax cuts for the rich at the expense of everyone else. WaPo DID at least do a piece on how much federal aid president Musk got for Tesla and Space-X. Maybe we should talk about clawing some of those billions back?

[Tybee]

I was sort of wondering what LDHL thought was the anti-freedom viewpoint.

But sure, from the oligarchical/fascist/trumpist viewpoint, of course Anti-freedom is anything that would curtail the income of billionaires and help J.Q. Public (i.e. the worker-bee / serf class). Tax cuts for the rich at the expense of everyone else. WaPo DID at least do a piece on how much federal aid president Musk got for Tesla and Space-X. Maybe we should talk about clawing some of those billions back?

I was a little confused by the original post and wondered the same thing.

[ejchase]

Calling anyone who opposes extending tax cuts for billionaires "anti-freedom" is the con. In my book, it is "anti-freedom" to limit access to housing, healthcare, food, and education for anyone who is not in the 1%.

What to you is the sign of a successful society? One where billionaires can build their own space programs for fun but the poor lack housing, food, and education? Or one where everybody has housing, food, education and healthcare and the billionaires have to pay their fair share?

[Yossarian]

What to you is the sign of a successful society? One where billionaires can build their own space programs for fun but the poor lack housing, food, and education? Or one where everybody has housing, food, education and healthcare and the billionaires have to pay their fair share?

And reasonable minds can differ on the calculus, but it's a worthy debate. Bezos is right in that you can find all kinds of views on the internet. And yet, there used to be a public forum where there was an exchange of ideas. And a credible forum to moderate the discussion. People will boo hoo about the moderation, but splitting into unadulterated tribalism with Infowars and the Daily Kos don't add up to the Washington Post or the old Sunday morning talk shows. It's the golden rule in play, Jeff has the gold so he makes the rules. Just seems so crass to debase and delegitimize yet another public institution into the service of the botox and lip filler crowd.