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]

@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.

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@MissConstrue Billionaires should definitely be required to give back to the societies from which they draw their wealth, and they're should be strong controls on what they can and cannot do to a society.

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@havvyhh2 Thanks for making that decision. I have friends who have done so, too, and are sharing that on social media to invite others to cancel their subscriptions.

[missconstrue@mefi.social]

@wdlindsy Whereas I would argue that there is no moral justification for billionaires. Period. End. Nobody needs 1000 Million dollars. Lots of people need food and shelter and medical care.

In a country where one in four kids is hungry? There is no excuse for the Gilded Age to return. They should be taxed out of existence.

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@MissConstrue I can see that point and I'm sympathetic to it, but I tend to think more in terms of laws curbing the ability of people to amass huge wealth and pass it on generation by generation. Taxation is a big part of what I have in mind as I say that — taxes that require those who enrich themselves in a particular society to give back in large proportions to the societies from which they draw their wealth. And more laws to monitor what they can do to affect that society….

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@0ddj0bb I did see a number of newspapers in that period, including my state's statewide one, take courageous stands for what is right. That formative experience, since I was a child and then teen at the time, probably led me to think, naively, that journalism always did that. I learned to my dismay as an adult that this is not the case.

[havvyhh2@mas.to]

@wdlindsy hope enough also do so to send a clear message....was thinking to subscribe to LA Times, but no longer!

[wdlindsy@toad.social]

@havvyhh2 I hope along with you.