1 hour ago, Vee said:

If this is true it will create such a chilling effect. Bezos must have access to data we don't. It's even more galling from that paper because they brag about "democracy dies in darkness." I have long found the coverage from that paper to be self-absorbed, smug, and pointless, but if they essentially endorse Trump, they can never again have any right to teeter on that pedestal.

6 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Bezos must have access to data we don't. 

No, Bezos is just being Bezos - hedging his bets. Plus there's Will Lewis.

Edited October 25, 20241 yr by Vee

2 hours ago, DramatistDreamer said:

Charlemagne, not my favorite but he made several salient points and I appreciated his relentlessness about driving those points repeatedly. The fact that he had Anderson Cooper frazzled was kind of the cherry on top of the parfait.

Another aspect that I don’t think media is up to having an honest discussion about is how these billionaires are wrecking these legacy newspapers for the benefit of their own personal interests.

I feel somewhat guilty even praising him given his history, but I definitely appreciated this moment. Cooper took over the conversation, but he still exposed just how hollow the CNN idea of "journalism" is. Cooper was shaken at the thought that anyone would ever question what a great liberal voice he is, because Cooper doesn't actually give a damn about anything but said image. He won't be affected by Trump. What does affect him is any shattering of the illusion that "giggly" Anderson, drunk on New Year's with pathetic Andy Cohen, isn't the forever friend of the increasingly small audience, but is a vain huckster, only a pink slip away from debasing himself the way Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo do every day. 

As I saw someone say on Twitter, would Cooper ever have spoken so crudely to one of the Republican propaganda merchants on that network, like Scott Jennings?

Edited October 25, 20241 yr by DRW50

Don Lemon has already graced the CNN studios this week.

Amazingly, the Times is pissed enough to lash out at Media Matters and send it directly to Semafor, where Max Tani eagerly takes up for them:

 

This would be unheard of a few years ago. But the papers/media of record, etc. have been getting much more thin-skinned in the last 8 years. Criticism is getting to them (for the same reason I expect to see Dana Bash calling out critique of her on-air, which she has done two or three times in the last year since getting dragged on Twitter).

Edited October 25, 20241 yr by Vee

For those of you still on Twitter, apparently there is an account dedicated to nothing but gift links to articles. Here is the handle:

@springwatch2020

 

The great Eugene Robinson calls out the media:

 

Media Matters responds to the Times' petulant defense:

 

The full Charlamagne segment last night. I don't think Anderson ever recovered tbh.

 

Anyone who sees Cooper as controlling the moment during that segment is seeing something completely different from what I saw.  Don’t get me wrong, Charlemagne is far from special, he handled AC the manner that any dude in the barbershop could have flustered Cooper but the point is that Charlemagne did frazzle AC and it showed and I agree that AC did not have the wherewithal to recover during that segment.

5 minutes ago, DramatistDreamer said:

Anyone who sees Cooper as controlling the moment during that segment is seeing something completely different from what I saw.  Don’t get me wrong, Charlemagne is far from special, he handled AC the manner that any dude in the barbershop could have flustered Cooper but the point is that Charlemagne did frazzle AC and it showed and I agree that AC did not have the wherewithal to recover during that segment.

Agreed. Once they both got going Anderson lost all control.

Pathetic.

 

Quote

The editorial page editor, David Shipley, told colleagues that the Post's publisher, Will Lewis, would publish a note to readers online early Friday afternoon.

Shipley told colleagues the editorial board was told yesterday by management that there would not be an endorsement. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.

Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.

re: the similar LA Times debacle, from The Guardian:

Quote

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the paper saw a spike in readers cancelling their subscriptions to the paper, with a total of 1,793 citing “editorial content” as the reason, a number that has circulated among current and former Los Angeles Times journalists.

A spokesperson for the Los Angeles Times did not respond to a request for comment on the uptick in cancellations.

Asked by Spectrum News about his response to readers who were canceling their subscriptions, Soon-Shiong said, “I hope that they understand by not subscribing, it just adds to the demise, frankly, of democracy and the fourth estate.”

And no, I don't think either billionaire has inside knowledge of the election. Bezos has govt contracts coming up for review and wants to appease Trump in case he wins, and Soon-Shiong is just a Musk pal period. This is not going to go well for either.

Edited October 25, 20241 yr by Vee

Faced with endorsing either a malignant narcissist and wanna-be fascist or a level-headed woman of color with an impeccable background, they ultimately chose to endorse neither.  God bless America!

This is hysterical:

 

Exhibit A of when “American oligarchs” are running the show.