Just a reminder that the opinion section is walled-off from the newsroom and is home to about a tenth of Post journalists. I have had so many conversations with folks who canceled their subs, urging them to reconsider and stressing that ownership doesn't interfere in newsroom. That's still true. - ThreadSky

ishaantharoor.bsky.social • 14 days ago

Just a reminder that the opinion section is walled-off from the newsroom and is home to about a tenth of Post journalists. I have had so many conversations with folks who canceled their subs, urging them to reconsider and stressing that ownership doesn't interfere in newsroom. That's still true.

Comments

nizdar.bsky.social•14 days ago

Go get a job that doesn’t involve some light simping for fascists.

ishaantharoor.bsky.social•14 days ago

A lot of maddening, dumb responses to this but I understand the reactions. I’ll just say that you can subscribe to my column/newsletter for free, which features my analysis and the great reporting of many Washington Post colleagues https://www.washingtonpost.com/newsletters/todays-worldview/

greaterlaker.bsky.social•14 days ago

Doesn’t matter to me. The opinion section apparently unanimously called for Amtrak’s long distance trains to be permanently cut some years ago and I swore off the whole organization because of it. Recent actions only reinforced this.

mongoebooks.bsky.social•14 days ago

How much of a discount do I get if I only subscribe for the news?

tigermakers.bsky.social•14 days ago

So you're saying I can cancel the opinion section independently?

It looks like any money I spend on the WaPo goes partly to pay the salary of the folks writing for the "opinion" page at this moment.

Is this not correct?

caravellin.bsky.social•14 days ago

Unfortunate as it is for actual good journalism those outlets do I feel that it's been true for awhile that the good journalism is reputationally subsidizing the rest of the outlet, which isn't neutral. There are other sources of good journalism, and if there aren't that's a much bigger problem.

tigermakers.bsky.social•14 days ago

That's where I am right now. I'd be giving them money for journalism, and they would be using it, in part, on propaganda.

caravellin.bsky.social•14 days ago

Like, when Playboy publishes good articles to provide cover for the porn, it's cute because porn isn't evil. If Stormfront published good articles it would be, like... dude why are you writing good articles for Stormfront. With NYT & WaPo there's a good answer: not many good jobs in journalism. But-

caravellin.bsky.social•14 days ago

- that's actually a huge problem that's hard to fix but giving more money to NYT and WaPo definitely won't do the trick.

throwingthings.bsky.social•14 days ago

You’re embarrassing and telling on yourself calling them journalists too

barbaricus.bsky.social•14 days ago

Sorry, I need to say this because it is apparently not obvious to you:

If it smells and looks like content control, than it is content control.

If you think that those actions will not influence what is getting reported in newsroom, I suggest you think again and harder.

You are not free press.

baylessmarilyn.bsky.social•14 days ago

If they practice censorship, what other reporting do they distort ?

barbaricus.bsky.social•14 days ago

If you would work for a private company where your CEO e.g. loves and promotes EVs, would you go and propose a product line that is specific to gas cars?

Point being, the communicates preference of executives influences everybody underneath.

He does not have to say or do anything else.

barbaricus.bsky.social•14 days ago

‘Communicated’

barbaricus.bsky.social•14 days ago

Sure.

breezus.bsky.social•14 days ago

Isn’t this what people used to say about Fox News circa 2010?

piell.bsky.social•14 days ago

Nah, I'm not giving money to an explicitly pro Trump regime paper. It's garbage and everyone should stop giving the Post any money and every journalist should quit

viktorshtrum.bsky.social•14 days ago

yeah, until Jeff Bezos decides it shouldn't be true anymore. It's very unfair to the very good journalists at WaPo doing good work.

jonatomic.bsky.social•14 days ago

Do you have high confidence that wall is solid and will remain so?

cuchulu.bsky.social•14 days ago

As good as those reporters are it is no longer possible to pour more money into the greedy, fascist hands of Bezos. Let a decent person buy WAPO.

burstallcross.bsky.social•14 days ago

I canceled mine, thought it thru, and re-upped in spite of Bezos.

gdubbstl.bsky.social•14 days ago

This is some serious, “Let’s quietly back-channel negotiate for the AP” energy.

Are you really so naive to think that Bezos won’t interfere w the newroom if Dear Leader tells him too?

alonpinkas.bsky.social•14 days ago

Yes, but it looks and just is bad enough

cerowb.bsky.social•14 days ago

I would like to speak to you about a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for a timeshare, Ishaan! Please reply with your date of birth and social.

danny.page•14 days ago

Lemme know when I can get 10% off my subscription to not pay for the Billionaire Propaganda section.

jeshk0.bsky.social•14 days ago

you should stop urging people to resubscribe to bezos’ billionaire box of bullshit

felixdrost.bsky.social•14 days ago

Hey Ishaan I was just about to cancel when I read this. On the one hand I want to signal my displeasure with Bezos, on the other want to keep supporting a team and newspaper that I respect. The latter won out again.

robt.fm•14 days ago

before the most recent presidential election, how much influence did Bezos exert over editorial? how much did prior owners?

docstock.bsky.social•14 days ago

Uh huh.

dochaus.bsky.social•14 days ago

Hello Ishaan, I am the Wallet Inspector, and I've noticed that you are about overdue for your wallet to be inspected. Please hand me your wallet and I'll return it once I've confirmed it is up to code.

daftpodunk.bsky.social•14 days ago

“This ship won’t sink, only three of its bulkheads are full of water”

lizardky.bsky.social•14 days ago

💯

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply