4 ms·

Washington Post opinion section is just garbage. I would call it propaganda section.

Animats 7mo ago
It is explicitly that now. Bezos policy change back in 2025: "Billionaire Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos is directing the paper’s opinion section to focus on “personal liberties and free markets,” he announced Wednesday, leading to editorial page editor David Shipley’s resignation."[1] [1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/26/jeff-bezos-washington-post-opinion-022790 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/26/jeff-bezos-washingt...
- timr 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - redserk 7mo ago
    No, the opinion section was absolutely not pushed towards libertarianism. Have you read it recently?
    - timr 7mo ago
      Yes.
    - watwut 7mo ago
      Libertarianism is just an euphemism for "authoritarian righ-wing, but dont want to admit it out loud" in most cases.
      - bnlxbnlx 7mo ago
        by now [1], yes. but in my experience not a very popular view on HN. expect downvotes. [1] i find peter thiel's speech at libertopia in 2010 a great early reflection of that shift: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgH7Lv2gQdk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgH7Lv2gQdk
      - deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
  - jrflowers 7mo ago
    I like that you say that the opinion you quoted is uncharitable and then agree with it. >Bezos pushed the paper's editorial slant toward libertarian
    - timr 7mo ago
      > I like that you say that the opinion you quoted is uncharitable and then agree with it. To people who disagree with you, your opinion is always trivially dismissed as "propaganda". This is neither insightful nor charitable, and applies universally to actors on any side of a political debate.
      - surgical_fire 7mo ago
        The word propaganda has a meaning. In this case I think it was used correctly. Propaganda as opposed to information (what one would naively expect from a newspaper). While a regular newspaper article would inform, propaganda would deceive with the intention of convincing people of some idea. And frankly, Bezos does very little to deserve charity when people evaluate his actions.
        timr 7mo ago
        > Propaganda as opposed to information (what one would naively expect from a newspaper). > While a regular newspaper article would inform, propaganda would deceive with the intention of convincing people of some idea We're talking about the opinion section. The editorial board writes opinions. You're fundamentally just upset that they switched from writing about opinions you prefer, to ones that you don't like, but they've always been engaged in what you're characterizing as propaganda.
        surgical_fire 7mo ago
        An opinion section can be spreading propaganda. Labeling a session as "opinion" in a newspaper should not give it free pass to say any sort of bullshit. And I am not upset at anything. I was never a Washington Post reader.
nxm 7mo ago
[flagged]
- advael 7mo ago
  As far as I can tell, "left wing" or "leftist" mostly doesn't refer to any coherent ideology or group of people, so much as acting as a catch-all term for things the ruling class doesn't like or people who they'd prefer not to have a voice in media
  - eudamoniac 7mo ago
    And yet this incoherent group of people all vote for the same candidates...
    - advael 7mo ago
      Yea except when everything that happens is the fault of "leftists" because they didn't vote for the same candidate, or maybe did but had some critiques of them. Sometimes "leftists" include anyone who has ever voted for a democrat, sometimes "the left" is only the people who dislike the mainstream of the democratic or labor or CDU or insert electorally-viable party here and of course then anything bad that happens to them is the fault of "the left". Sometimes "leftists" are weak and have no sense of reality and can't possibly accomplish anything in the real world, but sometimes "the left" is an omnipresent cabal that secretly rules society and can destroy the careers of celebrities. Who exactly this consists of, what their interests are, what real organizations represent those interests, and even what they want seems to vary a lot based on who you're asking and what point they're trying to make today Also of course if you're one of "those people" - some sort of minority or a woman or something - and don't loudly say conspicuously jingoistic shit that throws most other people that share your aberration under the bus, people will often assume you're a radical leftist. Unless of course radical leftists are the actual cause of your problems in some hypothetical argument being presented to you unprompted by someone who heard it on a podcast. The left is everyone and the left is no one

It is explicitly that now. Bezos policy change back in 2025: "Billionaire Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos is directing the paper’s opinion section to focus on “personal liberties and free markets,” he announced Wednesday, leading to editorial page editor David Shipley’s resignation."[1] [1] https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/26/jeff-bezos-washington-post-opinion-022790 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/26/jeff-bezos-washingt...

timr 7mo ago
[flagged]
- redserk 7mo ago
  No, the opinion section was absolutely not pushed towards libertarianism. Have you read it recently?
  - timr 7mo ago
    Yes.
  - watwut 7mo ago
    Libertarianism is just an euphemism for "authoritarian righ-wing, but dont want to admit it out loud" in most cases.
    - bnlxbnlx 7mo ago
      by now [1], yes. but in my experience not a very popular view on HN. expect downvotes. [1] i find peter thiel's speech at libertopia in 2010 a great early reflection of that shift: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgH7Lv2gQdk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgH7Lv2gQdk
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
- jrflowers 7mo ago
  I like that you say that the opinion you quoted is uncharitable and then agree with it. >Bezos pushed the paper's editorial slant toward libertarian
  - timr 7mo ago
    > I like that you say that the opinion you quoted is uncharitable and then agree with it. To people who disagree with you, your opinion is always trivially dismissed as "propaganda". This is neither insightful nor charitable, and applies universally to actors on any side of a political debate.
    - surgical_fire 7mo ago
      The word propaganda has a meaning. In this case I think it was used correctly. Propaganda as opposed to information (what one would naively expect from a newspaper). While a regular newspaper article would inform, propaganda would deceive with the intention of convincing people of some idea. And frankly, Bezos does very little to deserve charity when people evaluate his actions.
      - timr 7mo ago
        > Propaganda as opposed to information (what one would naively expect from a newspaper). > While a regular newspaper article would inform, propaganda would deceive with the intention of convincing people of some idea We're talking about the opinion section. The editorial board writes opinions. You're fundamentally just upset that they switched from writing about opinions you prefer, to ones that you don't like, but they've always been engaged in what you're characterizing as propaganda.
        surgical_fire 7mo ago
        An opinion section can be spreading propaganda. Labeling a session as "opinion" in a newspaper should not give it free pass to say any sort of bullshit. And I am not upset at anything. I was never a Washington Post reader.

nxm 7mo ago

[flagged]

advael 7mo ago
As far as I can tell, "left wing" or "leftist" mostly doesn't refer to any coherent ideology or group of people, so much as acting as a catch-all term for things the ruling class doesn't like or people who they'd prefer not to have a voice in media
- eudamoniac 7mo ago
  And yet this incoherent group of people all vote for the same candidates...
  - advael 7mo ago
    Yea except when everything that happens is the fault of "leftists" because they didn't vote for the same candidate, or maybe did but had some critiques of them. Sometimes "leftists" include anyone who has ever voted for a democrat, sometimes "the left" is only the people who dislike the mainstream of the democratic or labor or CDU or insert electorally-viable party here and of course then anything bad that happens to them is the fault of "the left". Sometimes "leftists" are weak and have no sense of reality and can't possibly accomplish anything in the real world, but sometimes "the left" is an omnipresent cabal that secretly rules society and can destroy the careers of celebrities. Who exactly this consists of, what their interests are, what real organizations represent those interests, and even what they want seems to vary a lot based on who you're asking and what point they're trying to make today Also of course if you're one of "those people" - some sort of minority or a woman or something - and don't loudly say conspicuously jingoistic shit that throws most other people that share your aberration under the bus, people will often assume you're a radical leftist. Unless of course radical leftists are the actual cause of your problems in some hypothetical argument being presented to you unprompted by someone who heard it on a podcast. The left is everyone and the left is no one