Everybody knows that WaPo is owned by a billionaire to spread his political views, mostly in favor of Democrats. But that's OK because billionaires like Bezos, Schmidt, and Soros are the kinds of billionaires Democrats love.
Well, if not for any other reason, the fact that it's still in business at all is an "influence", because without his purchase, it would have gone the way of the dodo.
And, of course, from the CEO down, people whose careers and income are on the line know what Bezos's expectations and politics actually are.
And I neither approve nor disapprove of NPR, but I certainly consider it strongly politically biased, towards the political preferences of both its donors and its listeners.
Wow so your evidence is that it's still in business and the CEO has "expectations"?
No, the evidence is the bias and inaccuracies in what
Institutional and corporate sources make up more combined (not quite majority), but they only make up more when combined.
What inaccuracies have you seen in the WaPo? Have you compared them to other sources like Breitbart which have knowingly posted fake news stories (and aren't a fan of retractions)?
Institutional and corporate sources make up more combined (not quite majority), but they only make up more when combined.
So, calling it "listener funded" is misleading. And its listener demographics is overwhelmingly intellectuals, with their massive biases and special interests.
What inaccuracies have you seen in the WaPo?
I stopped reading them and I don't keep track. In addition to being often wrong, the WaPo was also just boring, a predictable echo chamber of the educated intellectual "moderate left" and
I tend to get my news from a variety of sources so it's not hard to check multiple sources. If you think the journalists at WaPo are anything like the people that collect the crap Breitbart puts out, then you're not very discerning in your news sources.
If you think the journalists at WaPo are anything like the people that collect the crap Breitbart puts out,
I don't think that at all! The difference between WaPo and Breitbart is like the difference between an expensive "escort" and a street hooker, or between Goebbels and some nutty guy on a street corner: the WaPo takes a lot of money for its prostitution, and its propaganda is carefully crafted to serve the interests of the state and to fool people like you. With Breitbart, it's pretty obvious to everybo
Sounds like you've fallen for the right-wing "you can't trust any of the media! They all lie" propaganda. That's unfortunate and I hope you're able to think critically and properly check your media sources again some day.
Sounds like you've fallen for the right-wing "you can't trust any of the media! They all lie" propaganda.
Not at all. I reached that conclusion first all by myself, then left the Democratic party, and finally concluded that Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians made a lot of sense after all.
That's unfortunate and I hope you're able to think critically and properly check your media sources again some day.
So you're saying that you're the critical thinker because you trust the WaPo, while I am unable to
I don't trust the WaPo more than sites like Breitbart, but you don't check your media sources, you think they're all bad and can't tell if one is better than the other. If you were checking all your media sources, I imagine you would have noticed a trend in quality by now.
of course not! (Score:0, Flamebait)
Everybody knows that WaPo is owned by a billionaire to spread his political views, mostly in favor of Democrats. But that's OK because billionaires like Bezos, Schmidt, and Soros are the kinds of billionaires Democrats love.
Re:of course not! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here you go:
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if not for any other reason, the fact that it's still in business at all is an "influence", because without his purchase, it would have gone the way of the dodo.
And, of course, from the CEO down, people whose careers and income are on the line know what Bezos's expectations and politics actually are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NPR isn't "funded by listeners", it's majority funded by institutional and corporate sources [npr.org]; that's true even at the level of individual stations.
And I neither approve nor disapprove of NPR, but I certainly consider it strongly politically biased, towards the political preferences of both its donors and its listeners.
No, the evidence is the bias and inaccuracies in what
Re: (Score:2)
What inaccuracies have you seen in the WaPo? Have you compared them to other sources like Breitbart which have knowingly posted fake news stories (and aren't a fan of retractions)?
Re: (Score:2)
So, calling it "listener funded" is misleading. And its listener demographics is overwhelmingly intellectuals, with their massive biases and special interests.
I stopped reading them and I don't keep track. In addition to being often wrong, the WaPo was also just boring, a predictable echo chamber of the educated intellectual "moderate left" and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that at all! The difference between WaPo and Breitbart is like the difference between an expensive "escort" and a street hooker, or between Goebbels and some nutty guy on a street corner: the WaPo takes a lot of money for its prostitution, and its propaganda is carefully crafted to serve the interests of the state and to fool people like you. With Breitbart, it's pretty obvious to everybo
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all. I reached that conclusion first all by myself, then left the Democratic party, and finally concluded that Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians made a lot of sense after all.
So you're saying that you're the critical thinker because you trust the WaPo, while I am unable to
Re: (Score:2)