609
submitted 2 years ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 156 points 2 years ago

The numbers are based on the number of cancellation emails that have been sent out, according to a source at the paper, though the subscriber dashboard is no longer viewable to employees.

Bozos doesn't like you looking at how badly he fucked up.

[-] uberdroog@lemmy.world 62 points 2 years ago

Do Amazon next. I plan to let mine expire. Amazon video is trash.

[-] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 51 points 2 years ago

I don't think I've ever watched anything from Amazon directly.

Seen lots of their content though :) 🏴‍☠️

[-] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 11 points 2 years ago

Arr, yarr, haharrr!

[-] VantaBrandon@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

I always get excited when I see the files labelled with AMZN, the quality is consistent

Even when I was a subscriber, I would just grab the torrent, much more enjoyable to watch with VLC than a browser

[-] Orbituary@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago

Letting mine go. I kept it for Vox Machina, but I will acquire it other ways next season and support the team directly.

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Yup, I'm not paying an extra $3/mo on top of what I pay for prime for no ads, I'll just not watch what's on your service. Not to mention, most of the filler movies/shows on all of these streaming services are garbage anyway. If it weren't for my wife, I would just have my Jellyfin server by itself.

If I lived anywhere near a city and not in the mountains, I wouldn't have prime either. It just saves too much time whereas my time is in short supply and I don't have it to make a 3 hour round trip run every few days.

[-] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 61 points 2 years ago

Their subscriber numbers have been absolutely decimated by Bezos’ decision.

[-] DrinkMonkey@lemmy.ca 91 points 2 years ago

It’s down 10% which is the literal definition of decimated!

[-] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

~~Literally decimated would be “down to 10%” aka down 90% I think~~ I was wrong

[-] ifItWasUpToMe@lemmy.ca 20 points 2 years ago

All you had to do was click the link and you would have found out that you are wrong.

[-] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 years ago

Yeah you’re right I’m the one who mixed it ip

[-] seaQueue@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Decimation means killing 1/10th of a group or population.

[-] Hugin@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

It means removal of 1/10th. deci 1/10 matus remove. So yes decimation was the name of the Roman punishment where 1/10 of a group was killed. But it can be applied to any group of people or things.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] JaymesRS@literature.cafe 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

![https://media1.giphy.com/media/vO43NDjeQPaQo/giphy.gif?cid=9b38fe91dls2uphre6knaki1w9xgjsppo46n0b1wio6c2ssf&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g](Neil from “White Collar” loves it when we’re on the same page.)

[-] Klear@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 years ago

The description goes first, then the link.

[-] solrize@lemmy.world 54 points 2 years ago

CNN talks about WaPo getting a backlash for not endorsing, but says nothing about Bezos intervention, lol.

https://lite.cnn.com/2024/10/29/media/usa-today-gannett-newspapers-endorsement-president/index.html

[-] barsquid@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

That's weird. I know CNN is quite familiar with dipshits intervening in coverage, so they should be able to spot it. They had one fuckface bend over backwards to give Donald an hour in front of a friendly live audience with a milquetoast moderator who was able to do fuckall against the lies.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Was there any evidence that Bozos made that decision? We’re all ready to believe it but want it just one persons allegation or something?

[-] merde@sh.itjust.works 43 points 2 years ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] monkeyslikebananas2@lemmy.world 43 points 2 years ago

Just canceled prime too

[-] lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com 42 points 2 years ago

On the one hand, I know that the newspaper had done this for decades and stopped now...

On the other hand: If a big German newspaper recommended voting a specific person, this would be a huge scandal...

[-] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 66 points 2 years ago

We have only 2 major parties and one has been a criminal enterprise for 56 years

  • Nixon Watergate
  • Reagan: sold drugs to buy guns for guys Congress said not to buy guns for because they were mass murderers
  • Bush Sr US: helped with above
  • Bush Jr faked evidence for a war which killed half a million people and cost 6 trillion dollars also illegally tortured
  • Trump do I even need to do this one?

At this point Trump wants to form militias to round up 25M people and drag them to concentration camps and turn the military loose on anyone who disagrees.

This includes 11M undocumented workers who almost all live law abiding lives and Americans who were born here from above who are by our constitution citizens regardless of the status of their parents.

He has publically called for violence, and end to our constitution, a new era where the dictator tells the government what the law is.

It is strange for any responsible party not to oppose essentially Hitler.

[-] lemmydividebyzero@reddthat.com 21 points 2 years ago

Opposing soneone is not unusual in Germany. Supporting one person or party is what does not happen here.

I'm not a fan of the orange one... Just telling about the German view on this..

[-] michaelmrose@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago

With 2 parties supporting the other is the only way that you oppose the one.

[-] brown567@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 years ago

The only way that you effectively oppose the other

You can always vote third party if you want to pay lip service while helping the candidate you dislike

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] eunieisthebus@feddit.org 20 points 2 years ago

The comparison doesn't work. In the US it is common practice that a newspaper gives a recommendation.

Also the US has a two party system. Compare this to Germany's multi party system. If you are undecided between to options a recommendation might help. If you are undecided whether you should vote the Greens or SPD a newspaper recommending CDU doesn't help you at all.

While it is not illegal for a newspaper to give a recommendation in Germany, it would be a scandal indeed. But the only reason for this would be that they didn't do it before. People are just complaining about changes like in this case as well

[-] Enkrod@feddit.org 8 points 2 years ago

Which drives the partisanisation of the media. Bozo is right about one thing: the trust in media is at an all time low in the US and trust is build through accurate and unbiased reporting. Endorsing politicians is biased as hell.

The newspapers repudiation of a fascist in dangerous times would hit that much harder had they not endorsed other politicians in less dangerous times.

So now it's damned if they do, damned if they don't... swallow that pill they must at some point. But it would have been an easier pill to swallow after the rule of fascism in the US had been averted.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

It also would be easier to accept if they were not changing policy immediately before an election, especially one with such serious consequences

[-] zerofk@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago

Exactly - I find the comments in this thread very confusing. A free and impartial press is one of the cornerstones of democracy.

I now understand a lot better why there is such a distrust in journalism in the US.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

Fwiw, this was always the “op Ed” section, editorial opinion.

I do believe that most reputable news sources historically distinguished facts they reported on from their editors opinion. It’s worth the same as any other well-informed persons opinion.

Of course that also led to Fox “News” and a radically misinformed public, so it certainly went to hell

[-] pachrist@lemmy.world 42 points 2 years ago

It's sad how much this will hurt good people who work for the Washington Post and how little this will affect Bezos.

[-] actual_pillow@programming.dev 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

If you still work at the Post after all this time it's kind of on you. They've had years to find employment at outlets that aren't a direct mouthpiece for Bezos.

[-] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 years ago

I'm not sure it's that simple. The job market isn't great right now, you're on a programming instance so I would think you would know that the job market is rough even for programmers right now.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Tja@programming.dev 5 points 2 years ago

The can cancel as well and work somewhere else.

[-] Car@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 2 years ago

Can’t imagine many news publications are offering competitive job offers.

Job hunting isn’t that great at the moment

[-] Tja@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago

Well, it's the price of not being dependent on billionaires.

On the other hand, if the hundreds of thousands of subscribers go to a some publication (I've seen propublica recommended earlier in the comments, for instance) they will be able to pay a decent salary to a bunch of those journalists.

[-] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Chump change for Bozos. Hardly a scratch

[-] JonEFive@midwest.social 27 points 2 years ago

I daresay this is the outcome he hoped for. Suddenly there are a bunch of open editorial author seats to fill. Taking bets on those seats being filled by people who don't lean quite so far to the left.

And a significant loss in subscribers? That's just the principled people fleeing who weren't gonna buy his nonsense either way. The people who stick around are the ones who are okay with billionaire interference in their news source, and those are the people Bezos wants as subscribers.

[-] FilthyHookerSpit@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

😔

Damn, that's quite plausible.

[-] seaQueue@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago

And he doesn't give a shit. Subscribers don't matter, control of a well known paper that will push his interests does.

[-] SpiceDealer@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago

The bigger question should be: why would anyone subscribe to Bezo's paywalled garden in the first place?

[-] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Like everybody else I object to what Bezos did, but boycotting the paper isn't going to tangibly hurt him, financially or in any other way, and it certainly won't change his behavior. The only people affected will be staffers who get laid off or have their salaries cut because of lost revenue. But hey, at least the social justice angels get to feel good by satisfyingly lashing out, and that's what really counts, right? The fantasy that they're fighting for a better world.

[-] echolalia@lemmy.ml 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

When the thing you enjoy and rely on is privately owned, the only way you can express your disappointment is to vote with your dollar.

Edit - the Post has always been too neolib for me to read regularly. I am not a subscriber

[-] Tire@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago

Who says it’s to hurt him? The man has billions and billions. If he lost nearly all his wealth he’d still be filthy rich. It’s about not consuming news that’s being blatantly influenced by people with power and money.

[-] Kroxx@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago

So do nothing and continue to financially support something you disagree with? Are you a cuck or something?

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] szczuroarturo@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago

I for one agree with besos.How tf is this a wrong thing to do ? The press should not tell you to vote for someone. It should report news. Sure it can shit on one person more than the other due to various circumstances. In case of this particular election it would probably be donald trump. Mostly beacuse its hard not to in his case. But the press itself should not endorse someone. But even if they are biased they should be biased in articles they create so that you can at least blame the particular reporter ( because pepole are biased and you cant really avoid that ). Company itself should not endorse certain politiicians.

The only thing i think besos should do better is do it( and annouce ) after this election or somewhere between election cycles. That was a very poor timing on his part.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Editorial boards are independent from newsrooms. They publish all sorts of opinions. That’s the point of the op ed sections of new outlets.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
609 points (100.0% liked)

News

38932 readers
940 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS