For profit "main-stream media" (MSM) outlets may finally be getting the message: If you are going to be the gatekeeper of information as opposed the purveyors of investigative and factual, unbiased journalism, there is a price to be paid - the loss of trust of the large segments of the public.  Bezos' message should be a wake-up call to what was once considered to be The Fourth Estate, which until the last two decades was a check and balance to the government and the establishment power to control public narratives.  Instead, the MSM and social media have become the gatekeepers of "the truth" whose goal now is to only allow establishment narratives to be published while calling all other commentary, opinion, and journalism - "mis, dis, and malinformation."  And as Bezos opines, the MSM has lost the public trust and the MSM has lost significant readership and viewership to the alternative press.  There is a price to be paid, and Bezos being a businessman first and foremost, understands that embracing and perpetuating intolerant ideologies at the exclusion of alternative facts to the contrary ultimately loses customers which in turn equates to lost revenues and profits.  Newspapers like the Washington Post need to go back to their roots: provide unbiased facts and allow their readers to come to their own conclusions. But force-feed your customer-base a singular biased narrative based on what has become an establishment ideology and insist it is "the only truth?" - you lose customers who now go elsewhere to find their information in order to form their opinions. Hence Bezos decision to not endorse any presidential candidate.

"In the annual public surveys about trust and reputation, journalists and the media have regularly fallen near the very bottom, often just above Congress. But in this year’s Gallup poll, we have managed to fall below Congress. Our profession is now the least trusted of all. Something we are doing is clearly not working.

Let me give an analogy. Voting machines must meet two requirements. They must count the vote accurately, and people must believe they count the vote accurately. The second requirement is distinct from and just as important as the first.

Likewise with newspapers. We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased."
-WaPo Owner Jeff Bezos

This OpEd is not behind a paywall.
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/28/jeff-bezos-washington-post-trust/

Trust me, I'm Jeff Bezos!

 

Hmm...

Right on cue , the leftest  incoming !Look at the Guardian’s first response, look at the rule of law defense spin.

Defend the rule of law,

 the Administration defends millions upon millions of illegal border crossers.

 

“The theory is that journalists should report the news rather than headline it – but on Friday the Washington Post, the celebrated ally of American democracy during Watergate, broke that principle. The paper came out refusing to endorse the candidate in the forthcoming election who will defend the rule of law, against the convicted criminal who has shown time and again – not least on 6 January 2021 – that he explicitly aims to overturn it”.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/26/washington-post-us-presidential-election-endorsement-refusal

 

I fully expect "The Left" to now focus attacks on the integrity of Jeff Bezos.  Trust me, I'm not a fan, but cross The Left and experience the vitriol and hate speech toward those with whom they disagree.  There is no such thing as debate anymore, just mud-slinging and name-calling.
"You're Hitler.  You're a Fascist. You're a Flat-Earther.  You're a <gasp> Conspiracy Theorist!"

 

Btw, notice that Bezos referred to alternative sources of information and journalism as "Disinformation."  So he still is a proponent of that trope.

"The commoners and plebeians are too dumb to engage in independent journalism."

There ya go - a billionaire's view of the rest of us. 
Most independent journalist will look at multiple views on issues and then chose to opine on one which they agree with, and if the facts change, their opinions change.  The MSM on the other hand states that their opinions are "The Only Fact-based, Truth and all else is Disinformation."  The latter is just propaganda.  The former is actual journalism.

And yes - there are some really far out websites - Flat Earther for example.  But I'll defend a Flat Earther to express their reasoning 100% of the time even if I 100% disagree with them. The other side?  The billionaire classes and The Left?  They want to censor all that doesn't fit "The Only Acceptable Narrative." 

And Bezos and other MSM publishers will continue to lose revenue and readership. Guys like Bezos states he understands the problem when in fact, he's pretty much just whining.  My guess is he would like to see John Kerry's approach: kill the First Amendment then outlaw all but the main-stream news while calling all other journalistic outlet - "Disinformation."  And then?  You have the equivalent to the Soviet "Pravda" (The Truth)   You know the old adage in the Soviet Union before its fall?  "Read Pravda, invert what is written, and there is the truth." 
 

2 minutes ago, riclag said:

Right on cue , the leftest  incoming !Look at the Guardian’s first response.

Defend the rule of law,

 the Administration defends millions upon millions of illegal border crossers.

 

“The theory is that journalists should report the news rather than headline it – but on Friday the Washington Post, the celebrated ally of American democracy during Watergate, broke that principle. The paper came out refusing to endorse the candidate in the forthcoming election who will defend the rule of law, against the convicted criminal who has shown time and again – not least on 6 January 2021 – that he explicitly aims to overturn it”.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/26/washington-post-us-presidential-election-endorsement-refusal

 

Explicitly stating that, as the owner of WaPo, he will not endorse Harris/Waltz IS NOT an implicit endorsement of Trump/Vance.
But!!!
That is exactly how the progressive, the Left, and Democrats are framing his decision. 

Personally I agree with him.  Truly unbiased (or less biased) MSM outlets should refrain from endorsing anyone. 

2 minutes ago, connda said:

I fully expect "The Left" to now focus attacks on the integrity of Jeff Bezos.  Trust me, I'm not a fan, but cross The Left and experience the vitriol and hate speech toward those with whom they disagree.  There is no such thing as debate anymore, just mud-slinging and name-calling.
"You're Hitler.  You're a Fascist. You're a Flat-Earther.  You're a <gasp> Conspiracy Theorist!"

 

Btw, notice that Bezos referred to alternative sources of information and journalism as "Disinformation."  So he still is a proponent of that trope.

"The commoners and plebeians are too dumb to engage in independent journalism."

There ya go - a billionaire's view of the rest of us. 
Most independent journalist will look at multiple views on issues and then chose to opine on one which they agree with, and if the facts change, their opinions change.  The MSM on the other hand states that their opinions are "The Only Fact-based, Truth and all else is Disinformation."  The latter is just propaganda.  The former is actual journalism.

And yes - there are some really far out websites - Flat Earther for example.  But I'll defend a Flat Earther to express their reasoning 100% of the time even if I 100% disagree with them. The other side?  The billionaire classes and The Left?  They want to censor all that doesn't fit "The Only Acceptable Narrative." 

And Bezos and other MSM publishers will continue to lose revenue and readership. Guys like Bezos states he understands the problem when in fact, he's pretty much just whining.  My guess is he would like to see John Kerry's approach: kill the First Amendment then outlaw all but the main-stream news while calling all other journalistic outlet - "Disinformation."  And then?  You have the equivalent to the Soviet "Pravda" (The Truth)   You know the old adage in the Soviet Union before its fall?  "Read Pravda, invert what is written, and there is the truth." 
 

Blame the activist pretending to be journalists!

“How could America’s news outlets, which claim to be guardians of the truth, be a prime source of untruth? The answer lies in journalists’ routines and their need to attract an audience”.

 

https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/news-misinformation-superspreaders/

Agree with most of what has been posited here.

Bezos is riding the fence in order to regain revenue. That's the only reason. He also sees that Kamala is a failing candidate, and Bezos might night have anymore "cover" if Trump wins. Bezos' revenue stream at WaPo may get progressively worse.

1 hour ago, Talon said:

Agree with most of what has been posited here.

Bezos is riding the fence in order to regain revenue. That's the only reason. He also sees that Kamala is a failing candidate, and Bezos might night have anymore "cover" if Trump wins. Bezos' revenue stream at WaPo may get progressively worse.

 

There's half a dozen significant MSM sources that are declining to endorse anyone this cycle.  Bezos claims it's a principled decision to regain the trust of the public by appearing impartial.  We'll see. 

 

Perhaps the MSM is reading the tea leaves and snapping to the fact that they'll be out of business if they don't regain the trust of the other half of the voters.  And credibility with the half that vote Dem, who aren't as stupid as the Dem Elite think they are.  There' are just too many alternative sources on the interwebs.

 

Or maybe it's a smokescreen, and they'll keep telling us the border is secure, the jabs are safe and effective, masks are an expression of love, there's no evidence of cheating, and Trump is Hitler.  But we're not endorsing anyone...

 

USA Today

WaPo

LA Times

Chicago Tribune

Detroit Free Press

MN Star Tribune

 

5 minutes ago, impulse said:

Or maybe it's a smokescreen, and they'll keep telling us the border is secure, the jabs are safe and effective, masks are an expression of love, there's no evidence of cheating, and Trump is Hitler.  But we're not endorsing anyone...

 

 

In all cases, watch what they do -- not what they say.

Zuck said he was sorry for all of the censorship on Facebook, but it's still the same.

He just sold his soul for support of his space program, and Trump have made many deals, so we will see how it all turns out if he wins.

 

I totally agree, media should be neutral and objective

1 hour ago, Talon said:

Agree with most of what has been posited here.

Bezos is riding the fence in order to regain revenue. That's the only reason.

It is a privately owned BUSINESS.

 

He can run it how he wants. Like other business owners do.

5 hours ago, connda said:

Explicitly stating that, as the owner of WaPo, he will not endorse Harris/Waltz IS NOT an implicit endorsement of Trump/Vance.
But!!!
That is exactly how the progressive, the Left, and Democrats are framing his decision. 

Personally I agree with him.  Truly unbiased (or less biased) MSM outlets should refrain from endorsing anyone. 

 Agreed.

 

We know who the outlets are on both sides. They will evolve or die.

 

They can no longer perpetuate their BS

10 minutes ago, impulse said:

Trump is Hitler.

That was JD Vance who said that and other Republicans 

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

He just sold his soul for support of his space program, and Trump have made many deals, so we will see how it all turns out if he wins.

 

I totally agree, media should be neutral and objective

 

Calling for truth an neutrality is selling your soul?

1 minute ago, pedro01 said:

 

Calling for truth an neutrality is selling your soul?

he sold his soul for support of his space program 

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

He just sold his soul for support of his space program, and Trump have made many deals, so we will see how it all turns out if he wins.

3 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

Calling for truth an neutrality is selling your soul?

 

 

5 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

Calling for truth an neutrality is selling your soul?

Yes, you said it before.

 

It's still nonsense.

 

7 hours ago, connda said:

Hence Bezos decision to not endorse any presidential candidate.

 

I think that is what everybody should do. That whole endorsing business seems to be something very specific American.

 

Why should anybody care who this guy or that company endorses?

Should all readers from X vote Harris because X endorsed her?

Should they feel bad if they vote for someone else?

 

How about: Get the facts. Think! And then vote for whoever you think is the best candidate.

14 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

Yes, you said it before.

 

It's still nonsense.

you talking to yourself? 

 

 

25 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

 

Calling for truth an neutrality is selling your soul?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/oct/27/bezos-washington-post-non-endorsement-election

 

What do you think? 

 

The multi-billionaire owner of the Washington Post, Jeff Bezos, continued facing criticism throughout the weekend because executives from his aerospace company met with Donald Trump on the same day the newspaper prevented its editorial team from publishing an endorsement of his opponent in the US presidential election.

 

 

NPR reported yesterday afternoon that The Washington Post has lost more than 200,000 subscription in the backlash against owner Jeff Bezos’s last minute intervention ending the Post’s policy of endorsing presidential candidates.   

12 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

 

I think that is what everybody should do. That whole endorsing business seems to be something very specific American.

 

Why should anybody care who this guy or that company endorses?

Should all readers from X vote Harris because X endorsed her?

Should they feel bad if they vote for someone else?

 

How about: Get the facts. Think! And then vote for whoever you think is the best candidate.

NPR reported yesterday afternoon that The Washington Post has lost more than 200,000 subscription in the backlash against owner Jeff Bezos’s last minute intervention ending the Post’s policy of endorsing presidential candidates. 

12 hours ago, MalcolmB said:

It is a privately owned BUSINESS.

 

He can run it how he wants. Like other business owners do.

NPR reported yesterday afternoon that The Washington Post has lost more than 200,000 subscription in the backlash against owner Jeff Bezos’s last minute intervention ending the Post’s policy of endorsing presidential candidates. 

 

There are multiple papers saying they will no longer offer endorsements. It makes sense you are supposed to report not cheerlead. 

 

Bezos basically admitted his paper had bias and is trying to pull it back. I don't think these papers will be around in 5 years anyway. On a light hearted note DJT media has surpassed the New York Times in market cap.

34 minutes ago, LatPhrao said:

NPR reported yesterday afternoon that The Washington Post has lost more than 200,000 subscription in the backlash against owner Jeff Bezos’s last minute intervention ending the Post’s policy of endorsing presidential candidates. 

 

 

When you are worth over $200 billion I don't think you have an obligation to care.

1 hour ago, LatPhrao said:

NPR reported yesterday afternoon that The Washington Post has lost more than 200,000 subscription in the backlash against owner Jeff Bezos’s last minute intervention ending the Post’s policy of endorsing presidential candidates. 

So, did those subscribers actually read The Washington Post? Or was it more like: Look, here, I am subscriber. Just stupid! 

What I do know is that I wouldn't trust Jeff Bezos or any media company he owns or controls.

Compared to the buffoon Musk, it is quite surprising how this man typically keeps his opinions to himself. Other than a woman that looks like an alien, he seems fairly normal. 

whatever MSM is trying to sell these days with their unified message (remember safe and effective, sponsored by faaisher, lol), I do the opposite...