3 ms·
You misunderstand what occurred. The paper prepared an endorsement and Bezos killed it. > they refused to endorse a candidate. > for them choosing not to endo
by justin66 9mo ago
You misunderstand what occurred. The paper prepared an endorsement and Bezos killed it.
> they refused to endorse a candidate.
> for them choosing not to endorse Harris
There was no "they" or "them" involved.
- atonse 9mo agoMy point is that why were they picking a candidate to begin with, even before Bezos got involved. Why wasn’t that the thing that annoyed people? I don’t like the idea of a paper taking sides (even if, in this case, their endorsement aligned with my side). It seems antithetical to the ideas of independent and non-partisan journalism.
- justin66 9mo ago> Why wasn’t that the thing that annoyed people? It's an occurrence that, whether you approve or not, is a normal thing for an editorial board to do, and people pay for it. They would have already lost any subscribers who find the practice of editorial endorsements of candidates so offensive that they are unwilling to support it. They lost a quarter million subscribers because the owner of the paper began making editorial decisions.