Not the poster, but I don't think a newspaper pulling an endorsement out of fear of reprisal is a great sign of a free press (or, to the poster's point, a press you care to pay for.)
Yup, this. I think it had zero impact on the election, but it was an absurd and gutless decision.
I'd rather not pay for that sort of thinking. However, I'd rather have the WaPo in its current form as opposed to severely diminished (or none at all).
It is far more likely that Bezos and Zuckerberg support Trump than fear being shot. Zuckerberg particularly, what makes you think this was a 180? The man has been doing machismo stuff like throwing spears at goats and challenging people to boxing matches for years. And have you seen the way Facebook is moderated, even years ago relative to the way Twitter was moderated under their old owners? Supporting Trump is in-character for Zuckerberg, even more so than Bezos.
I must say though, this "billionaires as terrified victims" narrative is hilarious. I hope the Democratic party rescues these poor billionaires from the man they're publicly supporting!
You're hysterical. Trump hasn't suspended habeas corpus, nor can he, nor has he even said he would. He claimed about ten thousand times, probably literally as many times as that, that he would put Hillary Clinton in prison. Has he? Has he even tried? Anybody who takes his bullshit at face value is a moron.
This country is filled with tens of millions of people openly defying Trump. None of them have been illegally arrested for it, none of them have been assassinated for it. Reddit's executive team isn't on the run from Trumpian death squads trying to murder them for defying Trump. There is no credible threat to people for defying Trump, least of all to people with the extreme resources available to Zuckerberg and Bezos.
We’re, what, two weeks in? If the most powerful person in the country threatens jail time, says his enemies are the enemies of the country, absolves the crimes of those who attacked the capital and assaulted police officers, etc etc I sure as hell will take those the threats he makes seriously.
Publicly, openly musing about imprisoning his enemies gives Bezos, Zuckerberg, et. al. fairly reasonable cause to believe that playing nice with Trump is necessary to avoid the full weight of the regulatory apparatus now under his control being directed at their companies.
(I don't think they'll be successful in appeasing him, but they're visibly trying.)
Should ownership of newspapers be limited to mere millionaires? Or do you mean that private ownership of newspapers should be abolished?
This country was built on privately owned newspapers wielded as weapons by their owners; I'm sure you've heard of Benjamin Franklin. The First Ammendment protects this more than anything else for this reason.
