Betsy Reed, editor of The Guardian US, speaks out about the craven refusal of both Los Angeles Times and Washington Post to endorse Kamala Harris in the election — that is, to reject fascism

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@ralph I think one would be hard-pressed to find articles that convey fact without also conveying the opinion, slant, bias, etc., of those writing the articles.

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@xs4me2 Yes, you're right.

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@Ultraverified Absolutely so.

[hillarygail@mastodon.online]

@wdlindsy second group of screen shots from the article you posted. Great article from Substack - everyone should read the whole thing

[johnlogic@sfba.social]

@wdlindsy

"People will think... what I tell them to think!"
- Charles Foster Kane
(played by Orson Welles in Citizen Kane, 1941)

Citizen Kane - Wikipedia

(en.wikipedia.org)

[differentdrummer@syzito.xyz]

@wdlindsy
https://syzito.xyz/@DifferentDrummer/113370201457182654

[thebratdragon@mastodon.scot]

@wdlindsy there is some kind of surprise from an industry that gave us Hearst, Pullitzer, and Hooray for the Blackshirts Rothermere?

[virtualinanity@toot.community]

@wdlindsy it does not buy you courage. If $200 billion (or whatever bezos net worth) isn’t “fuck you” money, what is? I wonder if in his mind he justifies it by saying those Trump actions will lead to layoffs since he doesn’t just represent himself but also his companies, but his companies have been going through large layoffs now to shore up share price and he doesn’t seem to care about those affected workers now

[huntn00@mastodon.world]

@wdlindsy Plain and simple: I don’t care if there some “good ones”, the bad ones outnumber the good ones, billionaires are a threat to a healthy society, period. And how much money do you need to lead a good life without being a monumental glutten? I don’t care how valuable you think you are. I’d cap wealth at $10M dollars, maybe more (less)…

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@Huntn00 Yes.

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@virtualinanity Yes, good questions and good analysis.

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@Thebratdragon Who's using the word "surprise" here?

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@DifferentDrummer I very much agree.

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@johnlogic Well-noted.

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@HillaryGail Thank you.

[havvyhh2@mas.to]

@wdlindsy ...and I joined the subscriber exodus to such idiocy

[missconstrue@mefi.social]

@wdlindsy Well, don't forget, last time Toady was in office, he personally cancelled a 10 billion dollar cloud contract with Amazon, saying "Screw Amazon", because of the Post's coverage.

Billionaires are a bad thing, and shouldn't exist. They do none of us any good.

[0ddj0bb@infosec.exchange]

@wdlindsy unfortunately journalism has always been about political affiliations of the publicatioms owners. We saw a brief period of reaction to the yellow journalism of the early 1900s with sensationalist capitalist journalism serving ultra wealthy and elite interestsnof its owners and friends.

Ever sinc3 cable news became a thing we largely returned to that sensationalist mentality. Papers have had to compete with that and unfortunately only billionaires seemed interested in keeping papers alive if anything for their own purposes.

It is no surprise and infact kind is laughable that anyone expected these papers to give 2 shits about such principles as democracy except to use them as empty platitudes for marketing.

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@0ddj0bb It has been all of that, and at the same time, I've seen newspapers taker courageous stands that move against the interests of those with money and power. I saw this happen with my own state's statewide newspaper during the Civil Rights years, when the paper risked losing subscribers (and it did lose subscribers) to oppose racial segregation and support integration. It can be done.

[0ddj0bb@infosec.exchange]

@wdlindsy yeah thats really the time period im talking. 50s through the 70s.