3 ms·

8%. I wonder how many they gained, if any significant amount

• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• duskwuff 2y ago
  > I wonder how many they gained, if any significant amount Very few, if any. WaPo already had a reputation as a liberal paper; one refusal to endorse a candidate is hardly going to convince conservatives to subscribe.
  • bad_username 2y ago
    It is disappointing that the only viable alternative to "liberal bias", at least according to comments here, seems to be "conservative bias". One would hope that there'd be a sizable pool of readers who are not really taking a particular side and would appreciate honest, neutral coverage. That's certainly what I'd appreciate (and pay for).
    • duskwuff 2y ago
      An endorsement from the editorial desk of a paper is entirely orthogonal to neutral news coverage from the reporting desk. One of the major reasons for concern here is that the non-endorsement was the result of executive meddling by Bezos. If he's stepping in to override the paper's editorial positions, who's to say he wouldn't also interfere if the paper were to report on something he found inconvenient?
    • 6yyyyyy 2y ago
      "Honest, neutral coverage" is a contradiction. You can be honest, or you can be neutral.
• AdamN 2y ago
  That's a big fat zero. No MAGA people are paying for WaPO (or any newspaper aside from WSJ for that matter).