Trausti
Illuminator
Really?I think this is no longer true here, but mainly because we now show so many adverts that are imported from the UK and the USA (with Australian accents dubbed over the vision).
Really?I think this is no longer true here, but mainly because we now show so many adverts that are imported from the UK and the USA (with Australian accents dubbed over the vision).
Yeah. I was an embarrassing number of years old when I found out that Flo from Progressive Insurance wasn't Australian.Really?
Yes really.Really?
Every accusation...Trump says they are nasty, enemies of the people.
WP? Or the people cancelling their subscriptions?Trump says they are nasty, enemies of the people.
I think Trump has often referred to the press, including the Post, as well of course as the "failing New York Times," as the enemy of the people. I think at times that they are, but not for the same reason. The policy of the press in general of sanewashing Trump's outrageous behavior and statements may come home to roost. He thinks they're his enemy, but when push comes to shove, they're not.WP? Or the people cancelling their subscriptions?
Owned fully by Bezos through a shell company so it's unlikely we will ever hear about the impact on the paper's bottom line. I will say that it is hard to believe that there are people out there who are on the fence but would be convinced by a WAPO editorial endorsing Harris. Does sort of reveal they were only kidding with that Democracy Dies in Darkness shtick.In the "Go anti-woke, go broke?" basket...
I'm seeing a few people on Facebook cancelling their Washington Post subscriptions because Jeff Bezos wouldn't let the WP editorial board endorse Kamala Harris.
Not sure how that'll translate to their financial position.
I'll need that explained, please.Does sort of reveal they were only kidding with that Democracy Dies in Darkness shtick.
After Trump was elected they started using that (on February 22, 2017) as their motto, much as the NY Times is "All the News That's Fit to Print." The pretty obvious implication was that Trump had brought on the darkness and the WAPO would shine the line to prevent democracy's death. Now in an election in which a whole lot of people think could mark the end of democracy in America, they won't tell us where they stand?I'll need that explained, please.
Apparently their owner won't let them.After Trump was elected they started using that (on February 22, 2017) as their motto, much as the NY Times is "All the News That's Fit to Print." The pretty obvious implication was that Trump had brought on the darkness and the WAPO would shine the line to prevent democracy's death. Now in an election in which a whole lot of people think could mark the end of democracy in America, they won't tell us where they stand?
Note: While I dislike Trump and intend to vote Democrat this year to express my displeasure with the GOP, I don't personally believe the hyperventilating about the end of democracy. But if one does believe it? They should be shouting from the rooftops to vote for Harris and not for Trump.
We still have a pretty good sense of what the WaPo Editorial Board were going to say, though.Apparently their owner won't let them.
Well, it used to be that the press was supposed to be impartial, and just report on the facts. In fact, even make sure to represent both sides of an issue, when people's opinions were involved.I don't much get what the preceding post has to do with Washington Post's decision not to take a stand, unless one is still delusional enough to believe that one must be some kind of radical to oppose Trump. I suppose that's a consequence of his and others' shifting of the center toward the right, but I don't buy it.