Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post Is on Pace to Lose $100 Million in Just a Year

submitted by Johni1 from titanblogging.com

all 37 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I’m willing to bet there is a lot going on behind closed doors.

[–]Irumiblue4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Sometimes they do good things sometimes they don't. Either way, there's a lot of mean people behind it already to care...

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

It's difficult to make money in journalism in the internet era.

They could take a page out of Murdoch's book and sell misinformation to the public to the highest bidder, probably Putin.

On the other hand there was one day three months ago when Fox News lost $787.5 million. And they've still got a similar lawsuit from smartmatic.

And Epps.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

They could take a page out of Murdoch's book and sell misinformation to the public

We're talking about the WaPo. They already sell disinformation to the public on behalf of the Washington military-industrial complex and pharmaceutical companies.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

I doubt it.

They seem to have made a loss last year, so they're not taking much money for native advertising.

They keep winning Pulitzer prizes for journalism, so they're doing some investigative research that they're reporting on.

What makes you think they're reporting disinformation?

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

They seem to have made a loss last year, so they're not taking much money for native advertising.

When I asked my accountant how much profit I made last year, he answered "How much profit do you want to have made?"

Profit and loss depends on income, expenditure, and creative book-keeping. Even if you think a company owned by Jeff Bezos is 100% squeaky clean about following the letter of the law, accountancy conventions still give a huge amount of wiggle room to turn an actual profit into an apparent loss.

Or maybe they're just badly managed and burning through cash faster than they can make it. There's only so many pharma ads they can publish in one day.

They keep winning Pulitzer prizes for journalism

Oh, like their joint prize with the NY Times for spreading the Russian electoral interference hoax?

Alexander Theroux describes the Pulitzer Prize as "an eminently silly award, [that] has often been handed out as a result of pull and political log-rolling, and that to some of the biggest frauds and fools alike."

Pulitzers are like the Oscars. They are mostly an incestuous, self-congratulatory exercise by and for members of the club, and only occasionally get given out for merit, and almost never to outsiders regardless of merit.

What makes you think they're reporting disinformation?

Have you read anything published by WaPo????

No, that's unfair. I'm sure that they occasionally do good journalism. I think I remember their Pulitzer Prize winning story on parents who accidentally kill their children by leaving them in cars, and if that is the story I think it was, it actually did deserve a prize. That is to say, Gene Weingarten deserves the prize and the WaPo deserves credit for publishing it.

But the WaPo spreads disinformation for the same reason as everyone else in the western mainstream press:

  • almost all of their international coverage comes from the same three government-affiliated sources that everyone else uses
  • they've been colonised by spooks who either write for them or are their sources
  • they report propaganda as fact
  • they don't report anything outside the Overton Window except to smear it
  • they rarely take any position which might embarrass or annoy their advertisers.

Media fact checkers are actually ideology checkers, but even "Media Bias Fact Check", which is as establishment as they come, rates WaPo as biased and "mostly factual".

WaPo pushes conspiracy theories. They either downplay or simply fail to report news that is inconvenient to Washington. At least, when Trump isn't president.

WaPo were one of the biggest cheerleaders of Bush Jr's disinformation leading to the Iraq invasion, calling Shrubbya's disinformation "irrefutable".

They created the Jessica Lynch propaganda fairy tale of a plucky young and cute American soldier fighting for her life against the evil Iraqis.

How about their role in spreading Yeonmi Park's disinformation?

Remember when WaPo claimed Egypt was supplying missiles to Russia? (Talk about selling ice to Eskimos!) Pure disinformation.

The Washington Post’s One-Sided Assessment of Disinformation.

How the Washington Post Accommodates Disinformation.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Oh, like their joint prize with the NY Times for spreading the Russian electoral interference hoax?

For fuck's sake. You haven't read the Mueller report yet, and now, years later you're claiming that the Russians' didn't interfere in the election?:

Read the fucking report, and improve the signal to noise ratio in your posts.

This is ridiculous.

There were charges. People were locked the fuck in prison. Where you not on the planet at the time?

Russian interference in the 2016 election was “sweeping and systemic.”

Major attack avenues included a social media “information warfare” campaign that “favored” candidate Trump and the hacking of Clinton campaign-related databases and release of stolen materials through Russian-created entities and Wikileaks.

Russia also targeted databases in many states related to administering elections gaining access to information for millions of registered voters.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

you're claiming that the Russians' didn't interfere in the election?

You know the Steele Dossier was pure fiction, bought and paid for by the DNC, right? Russia's so-called "interference" in the 2016 was a few tens of thousands of dollars spent by a private group for Facebook ads and some Twitter memes, with no effect on the election.

Even WaPo begrudgingly admitted there was no effect on the election -- seven years later.

The Democrats knew about the so-called "Russian interference" before the election, it didn't become an issue until they had to rationalise their defeat. Suddenly Clinton and the Dems were parroting the exact same views about election fairness that just a few weeks earlier they were lambasting Trump for saying, except with Trump and Clinton swapped in the role of hero and villain.

"Putin posted nasty memes about Hillary on teh interwebs and that's why we lost! 😢 😢"

Journalists who uncritically repeated the conspiracy theory got promoted, while those who were critical or skeptical got slammed for being Russian agents.

There were charges.

Yes, for obstruction and perjury, not conspiracy or election fraud. Mueller concluded that there was no criminal conspiracy in the first place, so even those charges have to be treated as suspect and likely politically motivated.

Especially as so many other players in this fraud weren't charged by Mueller. Like Joseph Mifsud when Mueller stated that Mifsud had lied to him?

Or Clinton's lawyer Michael Sussmann over the fraud. He's been charged now, by John Durham, but the question is, why didn't Mueller notice that Clinton's lawyer paid for Steele to invent this conspiracy story, and if he did notice, why did he let it slide?

The Mueller report was a nothing burger with extra nothing and a side-order of nothing. Mueller was forced to drop the charges against Concord when they showed up to defend themselves, because he had no evidence, exactly as Zerohedge predicted.

The Democrats concocted this elaborate fantasy of Trump as an agent of Russia and Russian interference out of thin air, and the compliant press ran with it for years, repeating every insane DNC conspiracy theory as if it were true. Russiagate and the "Russian interference hoax" was obvious fiction from the beginning and yet BlueAnon have lapped up every word. Even the pee tape story 😂

Mueller's major source for the claim that Russia hacked the Democrat servers, Crowdstrike, admitted that there is no evidence that the servers were hacked. They basically just made it up, and Mueller just repeated these conspiracy theories as fact despite having no evidence for them.

When Mueller asked Crowdstrike for permission to do a forensic examination of the servers they claimed were hacked, they blew him off, refused to allow it, and then finally provided him with a couple of hard drives they had copied themselves. (By memory, they provided copies of four disks out of the ten or more servers they claimed had been hacked.) Which of course showed no firm evidence of having been hacked.

It's far more likely that a DNC insider leaked the emails to Wikileaks out of disgust at how the DNC was rigging the primaries -- something that the DNC admitted in court, arguing that they are not obliged to run fair elections in the primaries and if they choose to interfere in their own elections they're allowed to. And the courts agreed with them.

This is your democracy in action.

Hillary Clinton has never forgiven Wikileaks for releasing this information. This is why she suggested that the US should assassinate Julian Assange, and then to add insult to injury then Trump defeated her in 2016. This was a good way to kill three birds with one stone:

  • ramp up a new cold war with Russia (good for arms sales, good for the intelligence agencies, good for business)
  • use that to smear and discredit political enemies, starting with Trump
  • and get revenge on Wikileaks.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

The Meuller report is very hard to read. Here's summary.

Russian interference in the 2016 election was “sweeping and systemic.”[1]

Major attack avenues included a social media “information warfare” campaign that “favored” candidate Trump[2] and the hacking of Clinton campaign-related databases and release of stolen materials through Russian-created entities and Wikileaks.[3]

Russia also targeted databases in many states related to administering elections gaining access to information for millions of registered voters.[4]

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

You know that repeating the worthless conclusions of a worthless report doesn't make them less worthless?

Mueller had no evidence of Russian hacking. Crowdstrike prevented him from doing a forensic examination of the allegedly hacked servers. Later on they broke all the rules for evidence integrity by providing Mueller with their own curated selection of copies of just some of the relevant hard drives. Any defence attorney would love that! And you're all "Data tampering? Never heard of it." 🙈 🙉 🙊

And then Crowdstrike themselves admitted that they didn't actually have any evidence of Russian hacking.

These are the facts: Mueller found no criminal conspiracy. He selectively prosecuted a few Trump-aligned witnesses for obstruction and perjury, while allowing Clinton-aligned witnesses like Mifsud off the hook. That selective prosecution proves that the Mueller investigation was not neutral or fair-handed.

Mueller failed to discover, or ignored, the criminal conspiracy between Clinton's lawyer Sussmann and the dodgy British intelligent agent Steele. Mueller invented bullshit accusations against the Concord company, and then when forced to put up or shut up in court, he dropped the charges. His evidence for "Russian hackers" is basically "Crowdstrike said so" and then Crowdstrike turned around and said "Um well ackchyually we don't have any evidence that we were hacked by Russia".

I mean, at least Ken Starr was able to prove that Bill Clinton had received a blowjob from Monica Lewinsky. Mueller found nothing.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

You know that repeating the worthless conclusions of a worthless report doesn't make them less worthless?

Locking up criminals is worthless to you?

So you think we should have any prisons or police?

And recovering well over $20,000,000 from manafort alone is worthless?

But much money does it take to have worth?

Mueller had no evidence of Russian hacking

Hackers have been convicted. Read the report.

These are the facts: Mueller found no criminal conspiracy.

Read the report. Being a republican hack he didn't consider Trump withing scope. But he detailed meetings between today close to trump and the Russians.

Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner were not charged for this because Mueller claimed that it would be to hard to establish "willfulness". That is that they could agree that they were too dumb to know that what they were doing was illegal.

He detailed Trump's obstruction of justice, but did not charge him because he felt that was out of scope.

[–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Locking up criminals is worthless to you?

If I said the food from "Dave's Greasy Spoon Diner" was over-priced and terrible, would you respond "So you think people shouldn't eat?"

We could debate the details of the various criminal justice systems from around the world, but in general I can see the utility in locking up criminals as punishment, for the protection of society and the deterrence of others. But that has nothing to do with the terrible, worthless Mueller report.

Hackers have been convicted.

Hackers have been indicted based on evidence we haven't seen, and probably never will. But we know that at least some of that evidence is contaminated, and has not been handled correctly for a forensic investigation. Mueller's forensic team was not allowed access to the DNC servers. They were given a subset of carefully collected copies of the server hard drives prepared by Crowdstrike. Authentic copies? Maybe, maybe not. That alone gives Reasonable Doubt.

It is the most convenient thing in the world for Mueller to indict some GPU officers. He will never, ever have to prove a single one of those allegations. Even Time, in an otherwise uncritical article about the Mueller report, emphasised the unproven nature of the allegations against the supposed hackers, and how unlikely it is that they would ever stand trial.

The Russian hacker indictment makes for a nice story, but so did the allegations against Concord. When Mueller was forced to either put up or shut up about Concord, he shut up and dropped all the charges rather than go to court with the evidence, or lack of evidence, he actually had. What makes you think the allegations against the GPU hackers are any stronger?

How do you know that the evidence they have against the Russian hackers is any better than the evidence that Saddam Hussein was still building WMD? The US has a long history of claiming irrefutable evidence that turns out to be made of moon beams and pixie dust.

[–]binaryblob 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The reason to own a news paper is to spread misinformation ever since billionaires own news papers.

[–]karma_police 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Only the right-wing propagandists are reporting this, without providing evidence. In any event, WaPo needs to adjust their subscription policy so that it's afforable, and so that they are accessable on several digital platforms.

[–]Ferretman 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

TIL that MSN is "right wing"...huh....

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/jeff-bezos-washington-post-is-on-pace-to-lose-100-million-in-just-a-year/ar-AA1ed1ua

[–]Ferretman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm fine with that.

[–]SoCo 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Pay-walled fake-news that is simply a source for other news outlets to make false claims with impunity by citing them, must not be very profitable.

[–]dashagou 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

great

[–]nmgb 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Wow, you've received a lot of attention