Bezos makes it clear he is on board for the New Gilded Age

[WyattEarp]

I don't think anyone is seriously upset about the Post, more like commentary on what anyone with half a brain understands.
Further evidence of the oligarchy and that the media is there to serve and protect the interests of the elites.
All this nonsense about MAGA while doubling down on the rot.

I got it MJ. I think we all got it.

As I said, it doesn't make sense for one of the richest men in the world to subsidize several hundred million in losses to challenge the oligarchy. It's kind of a contradictory idea. I actually think he would be willing to sell it after owning it for twelve years and losing lots of money.

Certainly, you know the limitations of a media outlet that can't attract an audience. What's the point of the message if it doesn't get to people?

Shouldn't people be complaining that Rachel Maddow doesn't work enough? I'm being totally serious. That's more realistic and achievable than thinking someone is going to underwrite a print publication that is not self-sufficient.

 

[Valcazar]

Does that mean that he is anti tariffs?

That might be allowed to some small degree (depends how much the new plan is to just "be on Trump's good side").

 

[Valcazar]

Are you all that whiny and delusional? Newspapers are dying. The Washington Post had been dying long before Bezos came along. This ain't 1973.

Maybe the change in direction is a last ditch attempt to stop the hemorrhaging.

It's not about dying or not.
It's a note about their choice of editorial content.

 

[WyattEarp]

It's not about dying or not.
It's a note about their choice of editorial content.

It's dead.
The change in editorial content is an act of desperation.

Why would Bezos wait thirteen years to make his sinister move?

 

[Valcazar]

Why are the legacy media having a rough go? Interesting article in Forbes identifying a lot of factors, but seems social media - which algorithmically feeds back your preferences - is where many go today.

https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2025/01/23/brands-legacy-media-isnt-dead-its-ready-for-repositioning/

Which is a major problem.
But every new media breakthrough has presented changes in what people consume and in what kind of media literacy is needed to deal with it.
At some point, new islands of credibility will be built, even though the current social media algorithms are so weighted against that.

 

[kherg007]

Which is a major problem.
But every new media breakthrough has presented changes in what people consume and in what kind of media literacy is needed to deal with it.
At some point, new islands of credibility will be built, even though the current social media algorithms are so weighted against that.

I reckon it wa part of Roger Ailes brilliance - first, tell the news in a more narrative style, with storylines and good guys and bad guys. Second, start telling your audience what they want to hear. As we saw from the deposition, they all knew at Fox that Sidney Powell was full of shit but they saw how the ratings spiked every time she was on pushing the conspiracy theories and promising to deliver all her evidence ("the kraken") of which she, under oath, denied having or didnt think any right minded person would believe her or something like that. .

 

[Valcazar]

Many of the good investigative journalists are moving to substack subscriptions. So users can pay them directly for their articles.

Which isn't great, since it means much less infrastructure supporting them in most cases.
Still, some investigative reporting still existing is good.

Just regarding Washington Post and LA Times, both owners have tried to make it less biased but culture keeps fighting this change.

They've both announced their pro-Trump bias actually, and that they are going to focus their attention on pleasing him.

I don’t think there is any good investigative journalism left there.

I'm not sure the LA Times ever had much of a reputation for investigative journalism.
It does look like the Washington Post is mostly abandoning it as well, although I doubt it will disappear completely from its pages.

 

[Valcazar]

It's dead.
The change in editorial content is an act of desperation.

Why would Bezos wait thirteen years to make his sinister move?

Trump wasn't in power and the current direction of autocracy and oligarchy wasn't underway.

 

[WyattEarp]

Trump wasn't in power and the current direction of autocracy and oligarchy wasn't underway.

I'm not arguing that WaPo has to change it's editorial outlook to get more in line with Trump and his supporters.
Liberal support is strong. There is an appetite for liberal commentary, but it's no longer being satisfied by newspapers.

What I am saying is that people are romanticizing newspapers and their influence in today's world. The Washington Post was an important news outlet. Emphasis on was.

 

[Valcazar]

I reckon it wa part of Roger Ailes brilliance - first, tell the news in a more narrative style, with storylines and good guys and bad guys.

Narrative-style predates him by quite a bit, but unabashedly framing things in good guys vs bad guys was something he brought back (and made the core of cable news, which was still in relative infancy then).

Second, start telling your audience what they want to hear. As we saw from the deposition, they all knew at Fox that Sidney Powell was full of shit but they saw how the ratings spiked every time she was on pushing the conspiracy theories and promising to deliver all her evidence ("the kraken") of which she, under oath, denied having or didnt think any right minded person would believe her or something like that. .

I think the move over time to just reflecting the audience back to itself is the big shift that has been turbocharged by social media.

 

[WyattEarp]

I'm curious. Can anyone who posted above demonstrate a paid Washington Post subscription print or on-line?

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

Nothing surprising.
The election itself was a coup by America's Oligarchy.
They saw a weak man in Trump, paid him off, used him as a blunt instrument and took over the government and appointed their henchman Musk.
Now Bezos is just trying to take care of the propaganda bit and do his part.

 

[WyattEarp]

I think the move over time to just reflecting the audience back to itself is the big shift that has been turbocharged by social media.

Big American cities generally had a liberal newspaper and a conservative newspaper. People typically selected newspapers based on their politics. Over time, I think the liberal newspapers had a higher survival rate. That doesn't mean that the attrition has stopped.

Cable news in order to hold an audience for more than 30 or 60 minutes began amplifying partisan messages. If you watch ABC, NBC or CBS News, you will get a less partisan message.

And yes, social media has turbocharged it. We all have friends who incessantly post political media on Facebook.

What's never going to change is people rejecting media sources and social media messengers they disagree with and accepting those in which they share agreement.

 

[WyattEarp]

Nothing surprising.
The election itself was a coup by America's Oligarchy.
They saw a weak man in Trump, paid him off, used him as a blunt instrument and took over the government and appointed their henchman Musk.
Now Bezos is just trying to take care of the propaganda bit and do his part.

I seem to remember Forbes and other outlets reporting many more billionaires financially supported Harris.

Perhaps you can wear a t-shirt "These Are Not My Oligarchs".

 

[Shaquille Oatmeal]

I seem to remember Forbes and other outlets reporting many more billionaires financially supported Harris.

Perhaps you can wear a t-shirt "These Are Not My Oligarchs".

Let us worry about the ones in power.

 

[Valcazar]

I'm not arguing that WaPo has to change it's editorial outlook to get more in line with Trump and his supporters.
Liberal support is strong. There is an appetite for liberal commentary, but it's no longer being satisfied by newspapers.

The WaPo doesn't do liberal commentary though.
It never really has.

What I am saying is that people are romanticizing newspapers and their influence in today's world. The Washington Post was an important news outlet. Emphasis on was.

It's still an important news outlet, but I agree completely that it isn't nearly as important as it once was.

This is just Bezos showing where his intentions lie, and that's worth commenting on even if you think the Washington Post is completely meaningless, since Bezos is a powerful oligarch.

 

[Valcazar]

I'm curious. Can anyone who posted above demonstrate a paid Washington Post subscription print or on-line?

As in anyone ever in the world who has a paid Washington Post subscription?
Or is this "you can't complain if you don't pay for it"?

 

[WyattEarp]

The WaPo doesn't do liberal commentary though.
It never really has.

Of course, that's a matter of opinion. Perhaps not progressive commentary but a supporter of the Democrats and their political philosophy.
The WaPo has endorsed Democratic Presidential candidates for decades.

The WaPo is also deemed to skewed left on the political spectrum. Are they liberal enough for you? Maybe not.

Research Guides: News Media Across the Political Spectrum: Starting Point: 1. "The Chart"

A Selection of Resources for Social Studies 98wc, Spring 2024

guides.library.harvard.edu

 

[WyattEarp]

As in anyone ever in the world who has a paid Washington Post subscription?
Or is this "you can't complain if you don't pay for it"?

I thought it was interesting question. Is anyone here directly vested in the Washington Post?

This was more along the lines of "you have a big beef if you are a subscriber."

 

[WyattEarp]

This is just Bezos showing where his intentions lie, and that's worth commenting on even if you think the Washington Post is completely meaningless, since Bezos is a powerful oligarch.

Bezos spent $250 million to buy the paper and conservatively has lost $500 million plus over the last twelve years. He pretty much left the editorial pages alone.

How much does a guy like Bezos have to lose before he can change the newspaper's direction?