There was another meltdown at the Washington Post after owner Jeff Bezos moved again to moderate the newspaper’s message, which has plummeted in readership. Bezos told the editors that he wanted the newspaper to advocate for individual liberties and the free market. The message sent the left into vapors and led to the resignation of Washington Post opinion editor David Shipley. Outside the paper, another round of calls for boycotts and subscription cancellations followed.
In the announcement below, Bezos declared, “I’m confident that free markets and personal liberties are right for America. I also believe these viewpoints are underserved in the current market of ideas and news opinion. I’m excited for us together to fill that void.”
He added that a newspaper should be a voice for freedom — “is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical — it drives creativity, invention, and prosperity.” He noted that:
“There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job.”
For those of us in the free speech community, the return of the Post as a champion of free speech and other individual rights would be a welcomed change. Notably, staff did not object when prior owners aligned with their views on editorial priorities.
Obviously, we will need to see how this new directive is carried out. I would be equally opposed to the Post purging liberal views in the way it moved against conservative and libertarian views for the last decade. I do not see such a directive in this announcement. Bezos wants his newspaper to be a voice for individual freedom and free market principles. That should not mean that the newspaper will not run any dissenting views on policies and programs. It does mean that the newspaper will continue to be an outlet for voicing extreme views calling for the curtailment of free speech and other individual rights.
What is striking is that many on the left expect Bezos to run the newspaper like a vanity project, losing millions of dollars to bankroll a far-left agenda. This is an announcement that goes to the position of the newspaper, not any intrusion into reporting. It also does not bar a diversity of opinion on the op-ed pages which still have a vast majority of liberal writers.
The thought that the Post would now focus on advocating for individual rights and the free market led Jeffrey Evan Gold, who posts as a legal analyst for CNN and other networks, to declare that it was the “last straw” and post his cancellation.
Jeff Stein, the publisher’s chief economics reporter, denounced Bezos as carrying out a “massive encroachment” that makes it clear “dissenting views will not be published or tolerated there.” For many moderates and conservatives, it was a crushingly ironic objection given the virtual purging of conservative and libertarian voices at the newspaper.
Amanda Katz, who resigned from the Post’s opinion team at the end of 2024, offered a vivid example of the culture that Bezos is trying to change at the Post. Katz said the change was “an absolute abandonment of the principles of accountability of the powerful, justice, democracy, human rights, and accurate information that previously animated the section in favor of a white male billionaire’s self-interested agenda.”
Just as a reminder, Bezos simply stated that the newspaper would advocate for freedom and free markets.
However, the most telling condemnation came from Post columnist Philip Bump, who wrote “what the actual f**k.” Not surprisingly, Bump wrote the condemnation on Bluesky, a site that promises a type of safe space for liberals who do not want to be triggered by opposing views.
Bump previously had a meltdown in an interview when confronted about past false claims. After I wrote a column about the litany of such false claims, the Post surprised many of us by issuing a statement that it stood by all of Bump’s reporting, including false columns on the Lafayette Park protests, Hunter Biden’s laptop, and other stories. That was long after other media debunked the claims, but the Post stood by the false reporting.
We have previously discussed the sharp change in culture at the Post, which became an outlet that pushed anti-free speech views and embraced advocacy journalism. The result was that many moderates and conservatives stopped reading the newspaper.
In my book on free speech, I discuss at length how the Post and the mainstream media has joined an alliance with the government and corporations in favor of censorship and blacklisting. I once regularly wrote for the Post and personally witnessed the sharp change in editorial priorities as editors delayed or killed columns with conservative or moderate viewpoints.
Last year, that culture was vividly on display when the newspaper offered no objection or even qualification after its reporter, Cleve Wootson Jr., appeared to call upon the White House to censor the interview of Elon Musk with former President Donald Trump. Under the guise of a question, Wootson told White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre “I think that misinformation on Twitter is not just a campaign issue…it’s an America issue.”
There was a time when a reporter calling for censorship of a political opponent would have been a matter for immediate termination in the media. Instead, the newspaper that prides itself on the slogan “Democracy dies in Darkness,” was entirely silent. No correction. No qualification.
The call for censorship for disinformation is ironic given the Post’s publication of a series of false stories and conspiracy theories. When confronted about the columnist’s demonstrably false statements, the Post simply shrugged.
The Wootson controversy was consistent with the embrace of advocacy journalism at the Post. We previously discussed the release of the results of interviews with over 75 media leaders by former executive editor for The Washington Post Leonard Downie Jr. and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward. They concluded that objectivity is now considered reactionary and even harmful. Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, editor-in-chief at the San Francisco Chronicle said it plainly: “Objectivity has got to go.”
The former Post editor, Downie, recounted how news leaders:
“believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading “bothsidesism” in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects. And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”
The decline of the Post has followed a familiar pattern. The editors and reporters simply wrote off half of their audience and became a publication for largely liberal and Democratic readers. In these difficult economic times with limited revenue sources, it is a lethal decision.
Robert Lewis, a British media executive who joined the Post earlier this year, reportedly got into a “heated exchange” with a staffer. Lewis explained that, while reporters were protesting measures to expand readership, the very survival of the paper was now at stake:
“We are going to turn this thing around, but let’s not sugarcoat it. It needs turning around,” Lewis said. “We are losing large amounts of money. Your audience has halved in recent years. People are not reading your stuff. Right. I can’t sugarcoat it anymore.”
Other staffers could not get past the gender and race of those who would oversee them. One staffer complained, “We now have four White men running three newsrooms.”
So, let’s recap: The Washington Post’s owner has been pushing the newspaper to shift back toward the middle and restore greater balance on its pages. He is unwilling to bankroll a far-left echo chamber of advocacy journalism.
Washington Post opinion editor David Shipley resigned in protest rather than agree to emphasize individual rights and free markets in editorials that speak for the newspaper.
Shipley previously fought to reverse Bezos’s decision not to endorse presidential candidates in 2024 or later elections. Some of us have long argued that newspapers should end such endorsements as inimical to journalistic neutrality and objectivity. The editors reportedly encouraged Bezos that, if he wanted to end such endorsements, he should wait until after endorsing Harris in this election cycle — a remarkable position devoid of any cognizable or controlling principle.
There was a time when advocating for editorials to champion freedom would not have been controversial. The staff’s hyperventilation only reinforces the need for such an intervention. These same voices supported the Post adopting “Democracy dies in Darkness” to oppose what they viewed as an attack on democracy from Trump or the right. However, advocating for freedom in editorials is simply unacceptable.
Perish the thought that a newspaper would commit itself to advocating for individual rights and the free market. (Warning foul language below)
Perhaps the Post could adopt a new slogan: “Freedom dies in Silence.”
Here is the announcement from Jeff Bezos:
I shared this note with the Washington Post team this morning: I’m writing to let you know about a change coming to our opinion pages.
We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets. We’ll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.
There was a time when a newspaper, especially one that was a local monopoly, might have seen it as a service to bring to the reader’s doorstep every morning a broad-based opinion section that sought to cover all views. Today, the internet does that job.
I am of America and for America, and proud to be so. Our country did not get here by being typical. And a big part of America’s success has been freedom in the economic realm and everywhere else. Freedom is ethical — it minimizes coercion — and practical — it drives creativity, invention, and prosperity.
I offered David Shipley, whom I greatly admire, the opportunity to lead this new chapter. I suggested to him that if the answer wasn’t “hell yes,” then it had to be “no.” After careful consideration, David decided to step away. This is a significant shift, it won’t be easy, and it will require 100% commitment — I respect his decision.
We’ll be searching for a new Opinion Editor to own this new direction. I’m confident that free markets and personal liberties are right for America. I also believe these viewpoints are underserved in the current market of ideas and news opinion. I’m excited for us together to fill that void.
Jeff
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
Yeah attacks on free speech are abhorrent and unconstitutional. Ask Eugibe Robibson and Katherine Long about it.
I think Bezos actions may be more a reflection of him understanding Trump would flagrantly, illegally, without a shred of remorse attack and scuttle his business interests. Must would be delighted to see Blue Origin out of the competitor’s arena.
And you silently play your indispensable right fiddle while the Republic burns.
For Bezos to demand that opinion pieces in the Washington Post concerning freedom and liberty is an evil affront to precious democracy. Freeom and liberty and antithetical to our American way of life and they must be crushed by any means possible. No less than some Some 51 former U.S. Intelligence Officers have signed a letter that stated that requiring opinion pieces advancing freedom and liberty “has all the earmarks of Russian interference” and would “lead to a mineshaft gap.” We can no longer tolerate mineshaft gaps.
I agree. Mineshaft gaps are the worst.
It has been said that this change came when Bezos finally picked up a copy and read what was in his paper
It’s not that long ago that a popular phrase was being spoken whenever a controversy had arisen: “what would Jesus do?”
Well, here’s my suggestion as a corollary, now that every move our new president makes is being questioned, attacked, or applauded:
the question that should be asked is this: “what would Kamala Harris have done?”
We’ve got democrat politicians saying things such as ‘the deal with Ukraine for its minerals is Un-American.’ Really? Why?
Because Joe Biden isn’t getting his 10% off the top?
I knew Turls couldn’t help but celebrate the censorship he agrees with.
Q: Do you still think that Mr. Zelenskyy is a dictator?”
President Trump: “Did I say that? I can’t believe I said that.”
Yes you did you 4 year old imbecile. Apologies to all 4 year olds, You’re much smarter than the dufus president we currently have.
“Guys, can we cut it out? Donald Trump is not an idiot. Let me just be very clear. Donald Trump is smarter than me, you, and all of his critics,
You know how I know? Because he has the White House, the Senate, the House, the Supreme Court, the popular vote,
There’s just no arguing with his success, winning a presidential election in the face of overt mainstream media hostility and other huge headwinds. He has a massive media ecosystem, bigger than the mainstream, built around him, and for him, and a religious fervor in a political movement around him. And his best buddy is the richest person in the history of the world, and the most relevant Kennedy is with him,
The Democrats’ strategy of hostility toward Mr. Trump and contempt for his supporters is just a losing formula
Van Jones
Turley’s article is about the return of freedom – You are FREE to say the stupid things that you do constantly.
It just makes you look like a moron.
Jones is correct. Trump has disproven beyond any doubt the idiotic claims that he is stupid, demented, or too old.
He has been going like a bat out of H311 for the last 4 years. He made an impossible political comeback and he is making the most serious attempt to cut federal govenrment that we have seen since Carter.
Is anybody else getting a SHTF feeling, like a lot of stuff is about to Go South in a hurry? These headlines from Zeroedge:
All Bets Are Off: Morgan Stanley Warns Selling Panic Triggers First $40 Billion In CTA Liquidations
Maryland Democrats “Clearly In Denial” As State Faces Twin Crises
DOGE This: DC Layoffs May Top Million, Recession Risks Soar As Jobs & Housing Sour
World War III Is Still On The Table: Europe Wants Boots On The Ground In Ukraine
‘Mini-Stagflation’ Will End With A Financial Shock
Maine Public Schools Are Collapsing As Children Of Illegal Migrants Pour Into The State
“PERMABEAR”
Far right as in extreme left.
______________________________
Zero Hedge
Zero Hedge (or ZeroHedge)[a] is a far-right[13] libertarian[18] financial blog and news aggregator.[14][15][19] Zero Hedge is bearish in its investment outlook and analysis, often deriving from a strict adherence to the Austrian School of economics and credit cycles.[20] It has been described as a financial “permabear”.[21][22]
– Wiki
_________
In January 2020, after Zero Hedge had been removed from Twitter, The Washington Post said that, “Zero Hedge launched in 2009, mostly featuring news and commentary about financial markets from a libertarian perspective. In recent years, the blog has amplified right-wing conspiracy theories on a range of topics.”
– Wiki
_________
“U.S. Accuses Zero Hedge of Spreading Russian Propaganda”
– Bloomberg
________________
“Is Zero Hedge a Russian Trojan Horse?”
– The New Republic
Far right is NOT compatible with libertarian or austrian economics.
I would note that Austrian economics successfully predicted and explained the great depression, and the great recession.
It is also the only economics that explains the decline in economic growth that occurs when debt levels get too high.
Austrian economists tends towards pessemisism – and occasionally austrian economists predict failures that do not occur or that are not as bad as predicted, or that significantly lag predictions.
But the most important recent thing they got right was the bad consequences – inflation that resulted for the massive spike in govenrment spending starting with Covid.
The outstanding question is how difficult is it going to be to fix that mess.
Economic analysis right now is a mixed bag.
There are many many many reasons we should be headed towards a strong economy.
But we have no completely solved the problems caused by that massive post covid spending boom and the debt burden we have accumulated.
I think the Trump administration is MOSTLY taking the right actions
Though it has yet to be seen how much of those cuts will be REAL.
We need to cut federal spending by alot and fast. if we are to avoid difficulties – possibly even a recession.
But I do not know how much ALOT is – though there is good arguments that we are more likely to do too little than too much.
I see TWO possibilities – a period of economic uncertainty before the resumption of growth,
or a recession followed by a period of economic growth.
The larger we cut federal spending and the more of a handle we get on debt and the deficit, themore likely we avoid a recession
The country wants to GROW right now – but there are LOTS of headwinds created by the mess of the past 4 years.
John Say,
I agree with your two possibilities. I have read economists saying we will enter into a recession caused by the fake Bidenomics. But they also feel we will come out of it to a strong economy. That was before all those companies announced their investing in America based manufacturing.
Would one of you capable attorneys please cite the Constitution for a legal basis for taxing for, funding, and regulating education?
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
The Department of Education, in the same vein as abortion, is unconstitutional and must have been struck down by the judicial branch.
Education involves less than 25% of the population, if that, and cannot be considered the “debt, defense, or general Welfare” referenced in Article 1, Section 8.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“…[Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please;…”
“The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.”
– Thomas Jefferson
_______________________
AI Overview
This quote, attributed to Thomas Jefferson, essentially argues that Congress’s power to lay taxes is specifically meant to be used for the “general welfare” of the United States, and not for any arbitrary purpose they might choose; meaning they can only tax to pay debts or directly support the nation’s [“general welfare”], not to pursue unrelated agendas.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Oxford English Dictionary
GENERAL, adj. & n.
Including, participated in by, involving, or affecting, all, or nearly all, the parts of a specified whole, or the persons or things to which there…
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
WELL, adv. & n.⁴
Satisfactorily as regards conduct or action.
_______________________________________________
FARE, verb [ I always + adv/prep ]
To progress or to be in a particular condition
It’s a completely different story whether you are talking about state or federal taxation, state or federal regulations, the specific provisions of the constitution of the state you have in mind, and the type of taxation you have in mind (eg, property tax, income tax, sales tax, etc). None of that information was specified in your question, making the question itself incoherent.
For those of you in Rio Linda, we are referring to Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution.
The NYT parted ways with Paul Krugman. MSNBC canned Joy Reid and is sweeping out lots of others. Trump and Musk are trying to cut dead weight. Tulsi canned a bunch of people for misusing government property to talk about sex and trannyism rather than do their jobs.
It’s morning in America, the shining city on a hill.
Krugman is a complete idiot and anti-American, anti-Constitution communist; in other words, he covets, bears false witness, and steals by virtue of his previous two sins.
Once upon a time – an EXTREMELY long time ago – Krugman was an excellent economist.
Tribe was also a great lawyer.
But that was long long long ago.
This thread has ripened, time to go off-topic
“Exclusive — Marsha Blackburn: Epstein List Essential to Uncover Global Trafficking Network”
WRONG: the trafficking is ancillary. This about uncovering a Mossad (and possibly CIA) system for compromising and controlling US politicians. Most likely to control foreign policy in the Middle East and generate budget items for use by the negarious players.
nefarious🤣
Jeffrey Epstein jet flights
Clue: Jeffrey Epstein’s jet recorded at least 730 flights to and from Teterboro Airport in New Jersey between 1995 and 2013. Lucky stiff was on board. Lucky stiff had a tattoo, “Welcome Aboard.”
And guess who else was on board?
Sounds very concerning. Are you sure? And how can you be sure?
It is curious how everything seems to touch everything else. Sex, Money, Politics National Security, Foreign Aide, NSA,
this speaks volumes for Mr. Bezos.
OT
“‘Revoke Elon Musk’s Canadian citizenship,’ garners support through Petition asking PM to [act].”
– CTV
________
“‘New low’: Longtime House Dem ripped for ‘disgusting’ questioning of Musk’s loyalty to US as an immigrant Kaptur previously signed onto a resolution condemning Trump for xenophobia”
– Fox News
______________
The American Founders required those admitted to become citizens to be “free white person(s).”
There will have to be a whole lot of “citizenship revocation” in America.
______________________________________________________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, and 1802 (four iterations for clarity)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…
Who would have thought a free speech zealot like Turley will praise Bezos for suppressing different opinions? Anyone with a mind, that is who.
I don’t think there is high praise coming from either one of them to seek to suppress different opinions. These journalists can certainly go independent like countless others cut off from MSM and be activist journalists speaking “their truth” to the world at large without any restrictions. WaPo is a business, like all corporate media is, and Jeff Bezos as a businessman is not in this for a charitable public-for-works activist project but to get real return for his investment. If the realities of business seem to infringe upon the views of editors and journalists to express themselves without filter, then so be it. That is the reality of work, any job we take imposes some limits as the expression of our opinions to the extent that they do no harm to company reputation and financial standing in the marketplace—in other words, a company reserves the right to discipline or terminate our employment. Bezos by calling out, free markets and personal liberties as the focal points (in the affirmative position of the argument) is trying to right the ship and capture a competitive advantage in a marketplace that is completely vacant of editorial coverage speaking in favor of free markets and civil liberties. Please, be honest, find me a MSM outlet outside of possibly WSJ that speaks remotely favorably on at least free markets! If you want socialist leaning critique of free markets, you can go online to other MSM venues (which have also been failing in their own right) who push the tired trope as to why a repeatedly tried and failed economic system like socialism will somehow work in the U.S. (and no, Scandanavia doesn’t count, even former PMs from Denmark and Sweden have insisted they are free market based economies, in response to the Bernies who have claimed they are). Bezos may fail in this task and perhaps is imbibing in a sort of viewpoint suppression along the way, but he is embarking on an effort to capture perhaps a new audience who might want to read more editorializing favorably on these things rather than demonizing them. Overall, he still needs to address the rampant editorialization of standard news report coverage as well, that removes the ad hominem statements interwoven between standard ‘objective’ report coverage, but so far this sounds like a good start.
Bezos is exercising his exclusive and immutable dominion over his private property.
That you covet, bear false witness, and steal is not a virtue but a sin.
Funny how whenever the Left is NOT the only voice allowed they scream they are being supressed.
#74. It’s face value. Supply and demand dictates a change at the WP.
These guys are so rich they are the market. Listening to a man talk about his Tesla this morning and he doesn’t drive it. It’s a robotic car or chauffeur. It’s programmed for destination and he sits back. Of course he travels on Tesla roads for navigation and safety.
Free markets.
“These guys are so rich they are the market.”
Who is wealthier – Harry Winston ? or the Waltons ?
A few can get rich selling to the very rich.
But to get into the forbes 400 you have to sell to ordinary people – the uber rich are NOT “the market” they are a tiny part of it.
They are just very good at anticipating what ordinary people will want and need.
Many think Bezos or Musk but many are forgetting Bernard Arnault. He has ranked number one to five in the last five years.
Jeff Bezos realizes that the wind is blowing from a different direction. The world has changed. Donald Trump is fundamental changing America. This is what Obama wanted to do. Poetic justice.
Independent Bob,
I think you are on to something there. What we are seeing is the change you speak of that Obama wanted to do. But Obama wanted it to be lead by academia and intellects. He and the far left wing Democrats did not anticipate in their arrogance that normal and sane Americans would or could ever question voting against their best interest. How dare those un-washed masses!! Who are they to challenge their so-called intellectual superiority! To think for themselves? Oh! My! for us un-washed masses to see through them, say and vote, “No!” Who are we to vote for the right of our own self determination? Without their input to how we will raise our children? Heat our homes? Make our meals? Drive a vehicle? Yeah, I dont need them for anything.
Trump is a surfer who found the wave before most everyone else.
He is NOT the the Wave.
MAGA started as the Tea Party before Trump came on the scene.
Trump did not create it – while he is a leader, he leaders by sensing the wave and getting out ahead of it.
“believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading “bothsidesism” in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects. And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”
I have always understood statements of this sort as reflecting the postmodern notion that the objective truth is impossible and that the only truth “my truth” can be deemed the only thing close to being valid based on the context of my race, culture, gender, sexual orientation, etc.— which shapes the totality of my lived experience.
Fair enough if one wants to go down that path I say, however corrosive such a view is.
However, I find it extremely perplexing when MSM like the WaPo (I believe I’ve seen NPR as well) takes such a position but yet GOES INSANE about the RAMPANT MIS/DIS/MAL-Information that is circulating all over the web and social media and openly cheerleads for mass censorship of opposing voices. Per this philosophy outlined above, why should there be any worry about such matters, let alone fearing its consequences to those exposed to such information, if one assumes their position as to how truth is produced? Never have gotten my head quite around that one but could simply be chalked up to the ideologue agenda of pursuing whatever means however conflicting/hypocritical at your disposal in order to attain some “blissful end”.
I am open to feedback if I have the wrong read here. Good article Mr. Turley.
You can reject objective truth entirely – it does not change anything.
Math and Science presume a FEW postulates that can not be proven to be true – and build everything on top of that.
Outside of Math and science we can still start with a few fundamental assumptions – accept those and most everything else can be derived logically.
As an example – do humans have the right to self ownership ? Or is slavery legitmate ?
Resolve that and lots and lots of things flow from the answer.
Both in math and science and in our human lives – probability and logic exist.
The absence of absolute truth does not mean that everything is true.
It does not even mean that truth is entirely relative.
We know many things – if not to absolute certainty to a high degree of probability.
If you accept ONE thing as true – thousands – even millions of other things MUST be false – because they conflict with that one thing we presume to be true. Further start with that one thing – and many other things are likely true because that one thing is true, and with each thing that must be true because of something we assumed to be true at the start, thousands – millions of other things must be false.
This is how science and math build all their laws – starting from a few postulates.
Disprove a postulate and large portions of math and science are falsified.
“I am open to feedback if I . . .”
Your identification of their inconsistency is spot on. That, though, does not bother them because they openly embrace contradictions.
I had assumed as much like your answer provided above. I believe long ago I read somewhere in the tome of the radical left, ‘Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals’, which pretty much encouraged activists not to feel any sentiment or shame for employing tactics that are contradictory or hypocritical to achieve the goal, i.e., the means are infinite and matter not, the end is all that matters. Interesting enough, I believe it was Hitler who first employed this same rhetorical device when it came to driving his burgeoning national socialist movement into power.
Oh, and Joy Reid got canned over at MSNBC! Good riddance to bad rubbish! She was nothing but a joke, and her over-the-top hatefulness and stupidity will not be missed! She was to journalism, what a rioter breaking into a liquor store is to a shopper. I really got a kick out of watching her cry on that video!!! I am not going to miss her stupid bald head!
Bald-Faced Liar???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
There once was a lady named Reid,
Who was quite enamored by screed!
She baited on race
Till she fell on her face –
It was fun to watch her cry and plead!
Awesome Squeeky!
Hi, Squeeky
Nice limerick! Hope you don’t mind, but I couldn’t resist rewriting the last long line as follows “…with no longer a headline to lead.”
Who knows? Maybe Floyd will chime in.
,
I was OK on the parody song, I think, but I am not good at limericks. I tried the other day to do one, but was too embarrassed to post it. But I will try again:
A pundit named Joy was vicious!
And most of the time quite malicious!
She loved to race bait,
And spew lots of hate –
Thus, I found her tears quite delicious!
I don’t have a clue as to a title.
Good one, Floyd. You are too modest.
For a title, try The Muckraker’s Lament.
Thanks! That’s a good title!
Postscript
It could be time to bust a few brain cells and post my own offerings…
😀
Ah, he’s shy.
You need to try! I thought of one while I was outside waiting to recapture Gertrude, the cat. She has been sneaking out when I open the door, but she never leaves the porch area. She used to be an outside stray, but I brought her in when we had a bad cold spell a few years ago. She is streetwise, and would be safe outside, but fleas. Plus, she sleeps with me every night and keeps the blanket on me. One day, I need to bring Sarge and Stuart in. I have flea treated both of them.
Being Flip?
Did you hear about Joy Reid’s firing?
Quite frankly, I found it inspiring!
Without Hate to spew,
Just what will she do?
Oh, I hear that McDonald’s is hiring!
(Somehow, I just don’t think I am doing them right. Plus, I am drawing a blank on a good title. All I could think of was Being Flip, or Lettuce Rejoice. Something burger related, which I am not happy with. )
Washington Post has been dying for years. Their business strategy of “Democracy Dies in Darkness” has morphed into “Leftists Cant Compete in the Marketplace of Ideas”. All major Left wing news outlets are dying. To wit:
CNN fired Don Lemon, Chris Cillizza, Robin Reade / Headline News, “Reliable Sources” (LOL) Brian Stelter and many others b/c of their Left-wing slant.
MSNBC/NBC’s fired Joy Reid, Katie Phang, Jonathan Capehart and Ayman Mohyeldin, while Andrea Mitchell & Lester Holt left b/c their ratings were in the dump.
The New York Times is so bad that:
* when their employees strike they return to work without a contract
* Bari Weiss, a Jewish lesbian, liberal writer wrote a scathing letter to the publisher in her public resignation letter, where she recounted open anti-semitism amongst NYT staff
* NYT’s former Executive Editor, Jill Abramson, wrote about the NYT:
Though Baquet said publicly he didn’t want the Times to be the opposition party, his news pages were unmistakably anti-Trump. Some headlines contained raw opinion, as did some of the stories that were labeled as news analysis…
The more ‘woke’ staff thought that urgent times called for urgent measures; the dangers of Trump’s presidency obviated the old standards…
Given its mostly liberal audience, there was an implicit financial reward for the Times in running lots of Trump stories, almost all of them negative: they drove big traffic numbers and, despite the blip of cancellations after the election, inflated subscription orders to levels no one anticipated….
They’re all barren and bereft of intellectual ideas or solutions to address our collapsing world. They are online terrorists who throw gasoline and a lit match with glee whenever they get a chance. And for this they expect to get paid!
No truer words describe Democrats than those uttered by David Horowtiz:
“Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out”
Estovir,
To add, Bari Weiss, she went on form The Free Press, which is thriving!! They now have over a million paid subscribers, had to expand their news room and hire more editors.
Read her NYT letter of resignation to publisher A.G. Sulzberger.
Savage 🔥
https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter
From your link:
“Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.
Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.”
I wonder how many of the left wing media institutions were getting funding from funneled money from NGOs and government organizations. Perhaps none, but it makes one curious.
NBC cut ties with MSNBC and now they are sinking like the Titanic. Most small town papers cannot afford to pay writers and so they reprint AP articles. I cut my subscription years ago. I miss the paper but got tired of the heavily slanted stories.
There is a plethora of independent media personalities, however, it takes effort to sift through the BS. It is like being a juror. One has to formulate an opinion on numerous sources.
“No truer words describe Democrats than those uttered by David Horowtiz:”
David Horowitz is tremendous. I have a bobblehead of him that sits in my living room. As you know, he is a Stalin diaper baby and was at one time the intellect behind many leftist movements, including the Black Panthers. When I was young, I read Ramparts magazine, which he wrote for, and then I became the publisher(?). His autobiography is a great read and can provide insight into the leftist movement before you came to America, along with following his conversion to the right.
I have a bobblehead of him that sits in my living room.
🙂
“In the announcement below, Bezos declared, ‘I’m confident that free markets and personal liberties are right for America. I also believe these viewpoints are underserved in the current market of ideas and news opinion. I’m excited for us together to fill that void.’”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
In other words, Jeff Bezos and Professor Turley are saying:
The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional, including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, CRT, DEI, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, NPR, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and “general Welfare” – ALL or THE WHOLE WELL PROCEED through governmental provision of security and basic infrastructure—omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor, or charity. The same Article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY the Value of money, Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes, and land and naval Forces.
Further, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.
The Necessary and Proper Clause is nothing more than a perfunctory redundancy for the purposes of clarification—a reinforcement of that which was previously codified—and may not be wielded to amend and impose separate acts that do not represent but alter the letter and spirit of the Founders and Framers.
Professor Turley and Jeff Bezos did not come close to saying those things anonymous old George.