• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Washington Post Cartoonist Quits After Jeff Bezos Cartoon Is Killed

Allan said:
The Washington Post editorial staff should be completely free to say "**** the oligarchs" as they see fit.
Click to expand...
Apparently they are, but that doesn’t mean the Post will publish it. She quit, she wasn’t fired.
 
Somerville said:
True, the problem being that Ms Telnaes no longer has the microphone on the stage that is the Washington Post. Until she has a job with another media outlet with an audience as large as the Post's, she has been effectively silenced.
Click to expand...
That sounds a lot like the complaint conservatives have been making about being shadow banned on social media. Companies are not obligated to amplify voices they don't agree with. Nobody rights are being violated when they choose not to broadcast an opinion to their audience.
 
multivita-man said:
Was Bezos mentioned by name, or is it the case that Bezos identifies with being a plutocrat so closely that he mistook it as a personal insult?

Some people might think of it as a form sociopathy.
Click to expand...
It from the cartoon that was in the first post, it it seemed it was a close enough approximation of the owner of the company she worked for to cause her bosses to not allow it to be published.
 
trouble13 said:
That sounds a lot like the complaint conservatives have been making about being shadow banned on social media. Companies are not obligated to amplify voices they don't agree with. Nobody rights are being violated when they choose not to broadcast an opinion to their audience.
Click to expand...
This is true. Bezos gets enough flak for taking a knee and kissing Donald's arse, he's not obligated to see it from a media source he owns.
 
trouble13 said:
No they aren't. The only thing they are doing is declining to publish her opinion. That is not what you are trying to claim it to be. The WaPo has no obligation to amplify her opinions. That is their choice.
Click to expand...
“They have rights, too.”

“…When we called out for another drink, the waiter brought a tray. “

Late stage,! Pre-fourth reich….
 
One thing is certain. The Washington Post can be dismissed as a neutral arbiter of reality. Its bias toward the ruling class has been exposed.

I mean, most thinking people realize mainstream media is the bulletin board of the ruling class but it is good to see it revealed to even the thickest among us.
 
Rexedgar said:
While banging away on your keyboard?
Click to expand...

I know. I know. I was not thinking clearly. Recent surgery and fun pills seem to cause some failures of thought. Keyboard tapping, monitor screen with boat pics in the background and I failed to make an obvious connection.
 
Bok Tuklo said:
One thing is certain. The Washington Post can be dismissed as a neutral arbiter of reality. Its bias toward the ruling class has been exposed.

I mean, most thinking people realize mainstream media is the bulletin board of the ruling class but it is good to see it revealed to even the thickest among us.
Click to expand...
1000023789.webp
 
Lursa said:
I have a question. Amazon has an incredible amount of content we all paid for, stored in its cloud. Movies, books, lists, data, etc. For things like movies, music, books, etc...I guess I'm not clear who actually owns it. I do mean purchased, not streamed. For instance, I have purchased thousands of Kindle books, some are downloaded on my Kindle, and some are stored in Amazon's cloud.

What happens to that content if:

Amazon goes under, is split up, is challenged by content owners en masse politically, is taken over by the govt, etc etc?​
​
Can Amazon or the govt hold our content hostage? Delete it all? Use it for leverage?​

Has anyone else ever wondered what happens to our content if somehow Amazon "ceased to exist?" Unlikely hypothetical I know but...?
Click to expand...
You do not own that content. You have been granted a license to access it at Amazon’s discretion.
 
Bok Tuklo said:
Once again it is shown the people who call mainstream media liberal don’t know what the **** they are talking about.
Click to expand...
The mainstream media is and has been conservative for several decades. They’ve been able to convince millions of useful idiots of the opposite, allowing them to effectively hide in plain sight. The reality is that when you look at the largest media in each area, it’s conservative virtually each and every time.
 
Moon said:
It from the cartoon that was in the first post, it it seemed it was a close enough approximation of the owner of the company she worked for to cause her bosses to not allow it to be published.
Click to expand...

Maybe he should just, you know, lighten up. It makes him seem less defensive and sensitive that way.
 
phoenix2020 said:
You do not own that content. You have been granted a license to access it at Amazon’s discretion.
Click to expand...

When you 'buy' a electronic version of a book, for example? Can you quote that in the TOS, etc?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom