'Turned out the lights': Fury hits Washington Post as it refuses to run $115K anti-Musk ad

[Rexedgar]

Oh, so the next President can just have a "special" employee who has absolute power and can just do anything?
That should be fun.
Why bother getting anyone confirmed when you can just have a bunch of "special" people who you guys can't do anything about or question.

“Next President?”

Not in the plan……..

The Heritage Foundation has been playing the long game since the 1980s.

 

[watsup]

Declining to accept an ad is not "censorship".

Of course it is. It is the refusal to allow a certain point of view to be heard. The question is why?

 

[Rexedgar]

There is more to it than that. The question is why Bezos refused to run it. Why is ne so afraid of the free speech of others.

That isn’t the question I addressed. Bezos is under no obligation to accept any ad copy.

 

[Sweden]

There is more to it than that. The question is why Bezos refused to run it. Why is ne so afraid of the free speech of others.

Bezos will or will not explain as he think will suit him best. Freedom of speech includes the right not to speak.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Declining to accept an ad is not "censorship".

All media outlets that Bezos has a stake in are now discredited.

He had no trouble running a pro-Musk add, but refuses the opposite.

That is unacceptable.

 

[watsup]

Bezos will or will not explain as he think will suit him best. Freedom of speech includes the right not to speak.

Bezos is clearly depriving others of freedom of speech. The question remains as to why.

 

[Sweden]

Of course it is. It is the refusal to allow a certain point of view to be heard. The question is why?

If WAPO ws the only medium in the US you would have a point. Bu its not so your don't.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

That isn’t the question I addressed. Bezos is under no obligation to accept any ad copy.

Bezos protected Musk. That is unacceptable. It's nothing more than common censorship.

All advertising in that publication needs to be cancelled. It needs to go broke.

 

[Rexedgar]

Bezos protected Musk. That is unacceptable. It's nothing more than common censorship.

All advertising in that publication needs to be cancelled. It needs to go broke.

Use the fire extinguisher, fella!

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Use the fire extinguisher, fella!

Defending it is a bad look.

 

[BitterPill]

Exactly. Freedom of the press includes the freedom to decide which advertisements they will accept, as well as which articles they ill print.

Agreed.

AP should also apologize to Trump and agree to call the Gulf of ****** the Gulf of America, maybe award Trump a substantial sum as well.

MAGA.

 

[vesper]

No, YOU read the First Amendment.

Musk is an unelected government employee. Stories are being squelched to protect him. This is not acceptable.

Bezos needs to go broke.

All Bezos owned media are not discredited and are worth less than The National Enquirer.

Name one person other than the President and Vice President that were elected to serve in the executive branch ever!

 

[Rexedgar]

Defending it is a bad look.

Ignorance of the US Constitution is a bad look, I didn’t reply until your post #5. You referenced the 1st Amendment. Maybe you come away from this with a better understanding of the laws?????

 

[watsup]

If WAPO ws the only medium in the US you would have a point. Bu its not so your don't.

The WAPO is a hugely influential newspaper because of its location and resources, and it becomes a very important and central question to determine why free speech is being chilled in this nation.

 

[Loulit01]

He censored free speech to help Musk.

This is a 1st Amendment violation.

It PERMANENTLY discredits any media outlet he has a stake in.

No. It isn't. The 1st Amendment prohibits government censorship. All companies censor their content. Bezos censored free speech to help Musk. Lachlan Murdoch censors news to help MAGA. Left wing sources do the same. They're within their rights.

 

[Loulit01]

The WAPO is a hugely influential newspaper because of its location and resources, and it becomes a very important and central question to determine why free speech is being chilled in this nation.

The Washington Post is in business to make money. Of course they can choose what to print, including ads. Where are the free market capitalists?

 

[Lovebug]

'Turned out the lights': Fury hits Washington Post as it refuses to run $115K anti-Musk ad​

It appears the reich-wing media (which has long been discredited) is now attempting to censor stories they do not like.

This is hypocrisy.

Bezos needs to go broke paying out the lawsuits that will come from this event.

MSN

Here's the ad

Fire Elon Musk

Our democracy cannot be held hostage by billionaires. Let’s restore power to the people and demand accountability from our leaders.

www.commoncause.org

 

[eman623]

The ads -
View attachment 67556607

View attachment 67556608

I confess I'm a little surprised they didn't go with Nazi salute Musk.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

No. It isn't. The 1st Amendment prohibits government censorship. All companies censor their content. Bezos censored free speech to help Musk. Lachlan Murdoch censors news to help MAGA. Left wing sources do the same. They're within their rights.

All Bezos-owned sources are discredited, and all ads must be pulled from them.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Here's the ad

Fire Elon Musk

Our democracy cannot be held hostage by billionaires. Let’s restore power to the people and demand accountability from our leaders.

www.commoncause.org

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

 

[jaypatriot]

'Turned out the lights': Fury hits Washington Post as it refuses to run $115K anti-Musk ad​

It appears the reich-wing media (which has long been discredited) is now attempting to censor stories they do not like.

This is hypocrisy.

Bezos needs to go broke paying out the lawsuits that will come from this event.

Let's see if I can get this straight , Mr.Cool.
You're saying people are furious because the Post doesn't want to run a 2-page ad that demands Trump fires Musk from the job Musk is currently doing.
Does anyone really think putting an ad in a Left-leaning paper to fire the head of DOGE and the richest man in the world is going to have any impact on Trump?

Someone please explain the rationale behind putting such an ad in a newspaper that is owned and read by Lefties. Maybe that's why there are thousands of people enjoying a day off milling around the reflecting pool in D.C. trying to figure out what they are doing there. Will that protest, instead of the dubious ad, result in getting Musk fired?

 

[Anagram]

Defending it is a bad look.

You are forcing people who otherwise largely agree with your broad political view to come into this thread and contradict you because what you said about the first amendment is just factually wrong.

To the extent that anything said on this message board affects anything, (which is luckily infinitesimal), you are helping Musk by having people who otherwise disagree with him come in here and contradict you rather than writing elsewhere attacking him so people aren’t misled into believing that your view is a majority among left-wingers.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

You are forcing people who otherwise largely agree with your broad political view to come into this thread and contradict you because what you said about the first amendment is just factually wrong.

To the extent that anything said on this message board affects anything, (which is luckily infinitesimal), you are helping Musk by having people who otherwise disagree with him come in here and contradict you rather than writing elsewhere attacking him so people aren’t misled into believing that your view is a majority among left-wingers.

Yes, it seems I was mistaken.

Just more cowardly billionaire buttplugs who do not deserve to call themselves Americans.

As a result of Bezos' actions, ANY publication he has a stake in is discredited.

Likewise, an advertiser boycott is likely to occur. He will begin to lose money. Maybe then he will find his spine.

 

[watsup]

The Washington Post is in business to make money. Of course they can choose what to print, including ads. Where are the free market capitalists?

All that I am pointing out is that Bezos is refusing to allow free speech at his paper because of his fear of the president, which is a very chilling thought. In effect, given that the president is a representative of the government, it does become akin to free speech being censored at the level of government. Free speech is more complicated than you are making it to be and, in this case, Trump is using the same tactics as Putin, which is the threat, openly stated or not, that there will be consequences for those who do not fall in line. What other reason could there to possibly be for what Bezos did? Threats from the top will keep both the oligarchs (Bezos, etc) and the common citizen in line. Putin has shown how effective that is, and now Trump is using that tactic. The threats do not have to be open, just implied. In the case of Trump,Bezos and others know that a single tweet from Trump will result in an onslaught of negativity on social media from literally millions upon millions of the cult members, and he is unwilling to risk the outcome of that.
At this point, free speech is definitely being impeded by the lack of courage and integrity, to include basically all Republican politicians.

 

[upsideguy]

When free speech can be hampered by fear, then it really isn’t free anymore and the nation becomes more like a dictatorial state like Russia whereby people are afraid to say what they really believe because of fear of retribution by the state, in this case as represented by Trump. It is very chilling and very dangerous to democracy when this happens.

Yes, this is just another data point affirming American democracy is yielding to a dictatorship. I appreciate (and share) the outrage of the OP, but I knew American democracy would not survive Trump. I am amazed at how quickly it is slipping away from us and how little resistance to this there actually is.

Declining to accept an ad is not "censorship".

Agreed. The issue beginning discussed here is wrong. Its not censorship, but an abdication of duty by what formerly was thought of as a free press. The result, unfortunately, is the same.