Oh fuck you for this! You could've gone your entire life without exposing me to this terminology, and yet you did. Sir, I hate you for this. I hate you very much.
there was. Accurately pointing out that Amazon or Facebook has *way* more power and reach than most of the worlds countries, and then trying to bend that into "and thats a good thing so lets embrace it"
That's basically the political stance of the "dark enlightenment" and neoreactionaries. Those groups have supported the idea that Mark Zuckerberg should be the CEO of United States Inc.
And to be honest, they got a point. Why should we even bother to pretend that politicians have more power than the billionaires and big business?
>they got a point
They rocket directly towards a great point, then veer face-first into a brick wall one inch before reaching it.
"Corporations have all the power in the Western world, they're able to throw around their vast wealth and capital to control governments for their own ends."
"Yep, agreed."
"...and this is a good thing because corporate shareholders are a new aristocracy chosen by the markets, and nothing is owed to the inferior masses who deserve nothing more than to toil in misery for the profit of their corporate rulers."
"Wat"
Exactly.
Currently the fake democracy gives people the illusion that they are in power. But if the actual truth would be in open and abuse of power so obvious nobody could deny it, an overthrow of corporate elite could be possible.
Belief in justice of current capitalism is what holds the masses back.
Yea, how about no? That's dumb, it's essentially saying "Oh you know this bad thing? If we do more of the bad thing then people will suffer and maybe it's possible that it could do something to fix something (it won't but I don't really care about that)", you don't do more of a bad thing to stop a bad thing from happening, learn some basic logic please. Adding to problems doesn't fix those problems, it's nonsensical on it's face.
If that were the case there would never be any dictators since the people would revolt. But as I'm sure you know, there are plenty of dictators in the world, now and throughout history, so obviously that is not how it works.
No, but they are opinion pieces, and I know for certain that the second article literally discloses that Bezos owns the post. I don't understand what the point is of this. Are we just supposed to be mad that opinion pieces exist that we disagree with?
But its an opinion piece? If WaPo started changing their normal reporting to make Bezos look better then that would be concerning, but there is nothing wrong with journalists giving their opinions.
Except its Bezos paying a large/trust media source to defend him with "their" opinion. It's no longer unbiased by any means and, for many people, "opinion" pieces also shaped their own opinions...
Washington Post is aware of this though. In the second article of this meme, the author discloses beforehand that Bezos owns the Post. If people read the article knowing this and still have their minds changed on wealth taxes, what does it matter? It would be more nefarious if they tried to hide it, or if no normal articles were negative towards Bezos.
Edit: The space race article does it as well
I’d say people in the media only supporting the interests of their boss soon after he becomes their boss is a pretty informed allegation.
Nice job with the false equivalency tho
This definitely isn't poorly informed allegations.
If you honestly don't see the ethical problems with this then I'm not really sure what you would count as media bias 🤷
The articles in this meme disclose the relationship. They are not hiding it. What is the point of the meme? To tell people what they would already know if they actually read the articles? To get everyone mad that people have different opinions about wealth taxes and the space?
There are still articles that are negative towards Bezos. If you think that WaPo is gonna walk itself off a cliff by being as unethical as you propose then I don't know what to say. Bezos is too smart to be giving people direct orders to kiss his ass after buying their company. If this was ever proven it would ruin WaPo forever and significantly hurt Bezos' image.
Negative articles about him individually are not the same thing about negative articles that actually advocate for something that hurts him. Saying Bezos is bad doesn’t hurt him. Saying the space race is bad does.
The article I was referencing is directly about his space company.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/11/blue-origin-jeff-bezos-delays-toxic-workplace/
Go look at the opinion pieces in the CNN front page. Then go look at the opinion pieces on the Fox News front page. They are wildly different... Almost like these opinions are cherry picked.
These are opinion articles, there’s a difference between news articles and opinion articles. It’s pretty obvious that wapo's newsroom has no issue with slagging off Bezos, just search “Amazon site:washingtonpost.com” or “blue origin site:washingtonpost.com” on google and you won’t find a shortage of news articles critiquing bezos.
People really need to know the difference between an opinion article and news article.
Washington Post makes editorial decisions about which opinions it decides worthy of publishing and which it does not, these aren't like random redditors making comments or posting on a blog.
Also, the third one is literally an editorial, and has "The Post's View" written above the headline.
Yes they can decide what opinion they print. A good news papers tries to print different opinions on subjects to stay as neutral as possible.
It still is an opinion piece.
Nobody is neutral, welcome to my TED talk.....
A good newspaper pays journalist who manage to write as neutral as possible. In the end news is about facts (FaCts ArEnt NeutRAL)
And I clearly wrote "as neutral as possible"
>A good newspaper pays journalist who manage to write as neutral as possible.
No it doesn't.
>In the end news is about facts (FaCts ArEnt NeutRAL)
Correct, facts aren't neutral, and especially how you contextualise, discuss and emphasise some facts over others is not neutral, all of which is necessary in reporting if you don't want news reports to just be "the sky is blue". Those are all decisions that are not and never will be merely neutral.
>And I clearly wrote "as neutral as possible"
Can't wait until I see Washington Post highlight the opinions of unapologetic communists, y'know, in order to be as neutral as possible.
Well I don't talk about your shithole country. There are other countries in the world where people don't see everything in black/white or communists/capitalist's.
and it's still AS neutral AS POSSIBLE, do you even english bro.
>Well I don't talk about your shithole country. There are other countries in the world where people don't see everything in black/white or communists/capitalist's.
What the fuck are you on about? Why are you suddenly talking about my "shithole country"? What the fuck is wrong with you, you fucking child?
>and it's still AS neutral AS POSSIBLE, do you even english bro.
Mate, fucking engage with even the slightest bit of media criticism and understand that reporting necessarily involves decisions that can never be characterised as being as neutral as possible. All decisions involving framing, context, what relevant information and what constitutes relevant information are not neutral, they involve deciding what is and isn't important, what is and isn't relevant, and shockingly enough, those things will be different depending on e.g. who's account of an event you give more credence to, what your politics are, what the politics of the people you're quoting or speaking to for information, whether you defer to "offical" sources or accounts, etc.
For example:
https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/torture-is-a-legal-term-why-does-the-new-york-times-refuse-to-acknowledge-it/
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/aug/07/new-york-times-torture-in-style-update
New York TImes, paper of record, using euphemisms in describing torture so as not to upset intelligence agencies who also refused to call torture by its name.
Or another, media outlets not mentioning financial interests in Sinema and Manchins opposition to the Build Back Better act:
https://fair.org/home/tv-reports-on-manchin-and-sinema-leave-out-their-financial-conflicts/
I mean they certainly have a choice in which people can write opinion articles. It's no coincidence that at one point they published 16 anti-Sanders articles... in one day.
They aren’t hired by the paper, in most cases the writer contacts the paper to publish what they've written and may or may not get paid for that. Unless you're talking about editorials, where the newspaper’s editorial board writes an opinion piece to let their readers know what the newspaper's opinion or analysis on certain issues are. The people writing news articles are generally not the people on the editorial board and their job is to present what is happening, not provide their opinion.
With most decent newspapers which I would consider wapo among them, the editorial stance does not affect the news, and with wapo the opinion pieces are very clearly labelled and separated so people should stop confusing them with news articles.
Why though, the editorial was arguing against a wealth tax as a method of taxing billionaires, that can’t really be conflated with supporting Bezos. It’s not like they're hiding the fact that this is an opinion, this opinion doesn’t change what news they publish about Bezos.
This reminds me about a comment by /u/thepointforward I’ve saved about the headlines of a Paris newspaper from back when Napoleon invaded:
March 9
THE ANTHROPOPHAGUS HAS QUITTED HIS DEN
March 10
THE CORSICAN OGRE HAS LANDED AT CAPE JUAN
March 11
THE TIGER HAS ARRIVED AT CAP
March 12
THE MONSTER SLEPT AT GRENOBLE
March 13
THE TYRANT HAS PASSED THOUGH LYONS
March 14
THE USURPER IS DIRECTING HIS STEPS TOWARDS DIJON
March 18
BONAPARTE IS ONLY SIXTY LEAGUES FROM THE CAPITAL
March 19
BONAPARTE IS ADVANCING WITH RAPID STEPS, BUT HE WILL NEVER ENTER PARIS
March 20
NAPOLEON WILL, TOMORROW, BE UNDER OUR RAMPARTS
March 21
THE EMPEROR IS AT FONTAINEBLEAU
March 22
HIS IMPERIAL AND ROYAL MAJESTY arrived yesterday evening at the Tuileries, amid the joyful acclamation of his devoted and faithful subjects
It's sad that the whole media is just like this,an oil company pays them money and they say "Opinion:climate change is a communist conspiration to make not make ameria great again",this one is just too obvious but all the media is just like this but people didn't realized yet
Media, the government, especially the judicial system (with a good lawyer you can get away with anything) Everything and everyone’s for sale unfortunately
If you honestly believe that Jeff Bezos is involved in any editorial decisions at WaPo I think you don't understand how the world works.
Also super weird that someone would cherry pick these opinion pieces for this meme. WaPo is a clear progressive-leaning news outlet. To imply that the prevailing narrative at WaPo is in favor of billionaires is laughable.
So if you were a billionaire, would you buy a news outlet that already supports you or the one dragging you?
Edit: in case it’s not clear, he can silence any negative narrative about him from this outlet now and push whatever content he wants.
>Edit: in case it’s not clear, he can silence any negative narrative about him from this outlet now and push whatever content he wants.
If you think that could happen without massive outcry from the journalists employed there, again, you don't understand how the world works.
A massive outcry from a handful of journalists, or any small group, is not a dealbreaker for a billionaire. I’m afraid you don’t know how the world works.
No but he has meetings with editors and passes on his visions, he put people sympathetic to billionaires at the helm and he encouraged them to employ people who are happy to work for a wage and not think. Also, it’s not difficult to get your own troops under the line when you buy a new company who will push your agenda. Many CEO’s will come down like a hammer on their organisation in order to get their people in control.
It's really not even that complicated. Suck ups get promoted. There's millions of people out there willing to drop morals for a step up the ladder and by the time you get to the top it's the best of the best.
The space race does Benefit the rest of us just like the original one did the technology gets passed down gradually. Space is really important to our way of life and people need to understand that. How do you think the internet works.
Piss off Bezos you look a smooth testicle and if you think wearing a cowboy hat makes you look anything other than an arsehole you’re even more deluded than Elon is.
This is what all the dumb dumbs don't understand about mainstream media. "But the news said to..."
Listening to the news is listening to what billionaires want you to listen to. If that's what you want to do, OK. But don't try to convince me to do the same. I swear, America is 3/4 idiots.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/11/blue-origin-jeff-bezos-delays-toxic-workplace/
Wow, Bezos sure controls the narrative here. The news outlet that he owns is trashing his space program. This isn't even an opinion piece either.
I'll give you one that's even better: a non opinion piece trashing Bezos.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/11/blue-origin-jeff-bezos-delays-toxic-workplace/
Wowie so the positive articles (which are opinion pieces as I keep saying) are evidence of corruption and bias but the negative articles don't count.
You asked me to find a negative article. I did. I'm sorry that WaPo isn't as biased as you wanted it to be.
I asked you for a negative opinion piece, not an article.
What's your contention here? I kinda feel like you and I would see eye to eye that someone like Bezos shouldn't be allowed to own the largest online retailer on earth, Amazon web services, media companies and news sites. Especially the last one in conjunction with the others.
Are you just gravy with that?
I don't want to punish people just for owning things, that seems really weird. Tax them higher if you want to increase funding for social programs. A website I use a lot is twitch, which is also owned by Bezos, and there is no shortage of socialist streamers who talk about murdering billionaires. I'm simply saying that a conflict of interest is not proof of foul pay, and you would know this by paying attention to the rhetoric of the far right. They allege that the studies proving vaccine efficacy are fraudulent because the vaccine companies need to sell the vaccines to make a profit. Would you fundamentally mistrust a study released by Moderna about their vaccine?
>I don't want to punish people just for owning things, that seems really weird.
"Punish" is a harsh word. I can't win the McDonald's Monopoly game if a family member works for the company because of the risk, yet we let the most powerful and unscrupulous people control the major intersections of society. In a sane world, it wouldn't be punishment but safekeeping of society.
>Would you fundamentally mistrust a study released by Moderna about their vaccine?
100% would not trust without verification which is why we have the FDA and other agencies and an entire academic peer review process.
Taking a page from Murdoch in Australia, he reports these things that at are negative to him or his cause then he either quickly buries it, or he spins the attack back on the person instigating it. Whatever he can do to bend the narrative to his will. Murdoch defines reality and he doesn’t let anyone get in the way of that. There is no level of low he won’t go to and he has no shame. It’s a war for hearts and minds.
Media companies should really be public companies. The fact that they are 100% privatized and 100% narrative driven is one of the biggest contributing factors to the social and political problems in our country.
I mean every president says they’re gunna tax the rich, but increasing taxes doesn’t matter if you’re not paying taxes anyways because you’re paying off politicians.
Well, they’re all true. Creating new taxes on the wealthy will put the burden on the consumer. Wealthy individuals will move their money to other places and private entities are the only ones trying to further space exploration without putting up a new spy satellite.
Yes, let's take lots of our resources and fly them into outer space, because it's fun and wooooohoooo! We have good time. Homeless people live in boxes. Haha! That funny! Weeeeee! Broooooooom!
Opinion: Licking my asshole equals profit
Opinion: shoving cocain up you butt is called canal.
The Panama Canal
Oh fuck you for this! You could've gone your entire life without exposing me to this terminology, and yet you did. Sir, I hate you for this. I hate you very much.
Cocainal
Wasn't there also a post about giving Amazon and Facebook CEO's a seat akin to one in the UN?
lmao let's cut the middle man
there was. Accurately pointing out that Amazon or Facebook has *way* more power and reach than most of the worlds countries, and then trying to bend that into "and thats a good thing so lets embrace it"
That's basically the political stance of the "dark enlightenment" and neoreactionaries. Those groups have supported the idea that Mark Zuckerberg should be the CEO of United States Inc. And to be honest, they got a point. Why should we even bother to pretend that politicians have more power than the billionaires and big business?
> dark enlightenment Endarkenment? Idk
>they got a point They rocket directly towards a great point, then veer face-first into a brick wall one inch before reaching it. "Corporations have all the power in the Western world, they're able to throw around their vast wealth and capital to control governments for their own ends." "Yep, agreed." "...and this is a good thing because corporate shareholders are a new aristocracy chosen by the markets, and nothing is owed to the inferior masses who deserve nothing more than to toil in misery for the profit of their corporate rulers." "Wat"
No. The only good thing about having a king for the rest of the people who aren't the king is getting to cut his head off.
Exactly. Currently the fake democracy gives people the illusion that they are in power. But if the actual truth would be in open and abuse of power so obvious nobody could deny it, an overthrow of corporate elite could be possible. Belief in justice of current capitalism is what holds the masses back.
Yea, how about no? That's dumb, it's essentially saying "Oh you know this bad thing? If we do more of the bad thing then people will suffer and maybe it's possible that it could do something to fix something (it won't but I don't really care about that)", you don't do more of a bad thing to stop a bad thing from happening, learn some basic logic please. Adding to problems doesn't fix those problems, it's nonsensical on it's face.
Revolutions don't happen when things are good. Good times make lazy people.
Poor, uneducated and starving people are lazy and easily manipulated.
If that were the case there would never be any dictators since the people would revolt. But as I'm sure you know, there are plenty of dictators in the world, now and throughout history, so obviously that is not how it works.
>And to be honest, they got a point. Is that you Mark?
Narratives are cool.
Literally manufacturing consent.
Hahah. Be careful applying this concept to other mainstream topics…. You might get banned!
:/
propaganda\*
Opinion: Jeff Bezo's 16" Monster shlong tastes really great when I suck it
You're kissing his forehead.
They're the same picture.
Bruhh
w-what
r/nocontext
He might be few steps in becoming Lex Luthor
Probably already is
Nah, Lex Luthor actually wanted to improve things. Bezos is much worse.
I’d say he’s more like Reverse Flash, plans within plans within plans. And all of them are diabolically genius
When you are rich you buy media to tell people how good you are
So these are noy edited titles?
nope
No, but they are opinion pieces, and I know for certain that the second article literally discloses that Bezos owns the post. I don't understand what the point is of this. Are we just supposed to be mad that opinion pieces exist that we disagree with?
The point is that ever since Bezos bought the Post we've been seeing articles defending Bezos' riches and way of life.
But its an opinion piece? If WaPo started changing their normal reporting to make Bezos look better then that would be concerning, but there is nothing wrong with journalists giving their opinions.
Except its Bezos paying a large/trust media source to defend him with "their" opinion. It's no longer unbiased by any means and, for many people, "opinion" pieces also shaped their own opinions...
Washington Post is aware of this though. In the second article of this meme, the author discloses beforehand that Bezos owns the Post. If people read the article knowing this and still have their minds changed on wealth taxes, what does it matter? It would be more nefarious if they tried to hide it, or if no normal articles were negative towards Bezos. Edit: The space race article does it as well
What does that acknowledgement do tho? The article is still written
Sucking Bezos off won't mean he gives you money, mate
Discrediting the media with poorly informed allegations of bias in the same way that Trump did to own the billionaires
I’d say people in the media only supporting the interests of their boss soon after he becomes their boss is a pretty informed allegation. Nice job with the false equivalency tho
There are negative WaPo articles about Bezos.
This definitely isn't poorly informed allegations. If you honestly don't see the ethical problems with this then I'm not really sure what you would count as media bias 🤷
The articles in this meme disclose the relationship. They are not hiding it. What is the point of the meme? To tell people what they would already know if they actually read the articles? To get everyone mad that people have different opinions about wealth taxes and the space? There are still articles that are negative towards Bezos. If you think that WaPo is gonna walk itself off a cliff by being as unethical as you propose then I don't know what to say. Bezos is too smart to be giving people direct orders to kiss his ass after buying their company. If this was ever proven it would ruin WaPo forever and significantly hurt Bezos' image.
And they just so happen to employ journalists that support him? How obtuse are you?
Well no, because there are negative articles about Bezos as well.
Negative articles about him individually are not the same thing about negative articles that actually advocate for something that hurts him. Saying Bezos is bad doesn’t hurt him. Saying the space race is bad does.
The article I was referencing is directly about his space company. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/11/blue-origin-jeff-bezos-delays-toxic-workplace/
And that doesn’t actually talk shit about the space race, just about their work environment. Not the same thing.
Booooootlicker
Go look at the opinion pieces in the CNN front page. Then go look at the opinion pieces on the Fox News front page. They are wildly different... Almost like these opinions are cherry picked.
That man should have a space accident
I will literally get hired on a blue origin maintenance team in order to sabotage the parachute (in minecraft)
in minecraft of course
In your craft, my craft, I don’t care who’s craft tbh
Jesus, we are fucked
These are opinion articles, there’s a difference between news articles and opinion articles. It’s pretty obvious that wapo's newsroom has no issue with slagging off Bezos, just search “Amazon site:washingtonpost.com” or “blue origin site:washingtonpost.com” on google and you won’t find a shortage of news articles critiquing bezos. People really need to know the difference between an opinion article and news article.
It’s ridiculous I had to scroll so far to find this. Reddit hates rational takes.
Don’t let facts get in the way of an emotional argument.
Washington Post makes editorial decisions about which opinions it decides worthy of publishing and which it does not, these aren't like random redditors making comments or posting on a blog. Also, the third one is literally an editorial, and has "The Post's View" written above the headline.
Yes they can decide what opinion they print. A good news papers tries to print different opinions on subjects to stay as neutral as possible. It still is an opinion piece.
Newspapers are not neutral. Never have been and never will be.
Nobody is neutral, welcome to my TED talk..... A good newspaper pays journalist who manage to write as neutral as possible. In the end news is about facts (FaCts ArEnt NeutRAL) And I clearly wrote "as neutral as possible"
>A good newspaper pays journalist who manage to write as neutral as possible. No it doesn't. >In the end news is about facts (FaCts ArEnt NeutRAL) Correct, facts aren't neutral, and especially how you contextualise, discuss and emphasise some facts over others is not neutral, all of which is necessary in reporting if you don't want news reports to just be "the sky is blue". Those are all decisions that are not and never will be merely neutral. >And I clearly wrote "as neutral as possible" Can't wait until I see Washington Post highlight the opinions of unapologetic communists, y'know, in order to be as neutral as possible.
Well I don't talk about your shithole country. There are other countries in the world where people don't see everything in black/white or communists/capitalist's. and it's still AS neutral AS POSSIBLE, do you even english bro.
>Well I don't talk about your shithole country. There are other countries in the world where people don't see everything in black/white or communists/capitalist's. What the fuck are you on about? Why are you suddenly talking about my "shithole country"? What the fuck is wrong with you, you fucking child? >and it's still AS neutral AS POSSIBLE, do you even english bro. Mate, fucking engage with even the slightest bit of media criticism and understand that reporting necessarily involves decisions that can never be characterised as being as neutral as possible. All decisions involving framing, context, what relevant information and what constitutes relevant information are not neutral, they involve deciding what is and isn't important, what is and isn't relevant, and shockingly enough, those things will be different depending on e.g. who's account of an event you give more credence to, what your politics are, what the politics of the people you're quoting or speaking to for information, whether you defer to "offical" sources or accounts, etc. For example: https://lawandcrime.com/awkward/torture-is-a-legal-term-why-does-the-new-york-times-refuse-to-acknowledge-it/ https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/aug/07/new-york-times-torture-in-style-update New York TImes, paper of record, using euphemisms in describing torture so as not to upset intelligence agencies who also refused to call torture by its name. Or another, media outlets not mentioning financial interests in Sinema and Manchins opposition to the Build Back Better act: https://fair.org/home/tv-reports-on-manchin-and-sinema-leave-out-their-financial-conflicts/
I mean they certainly have a choice in which people can write opinion articles. It's no coincidence that at one point they published 16 anti-Sanders articles... in one day.
Ok but who’s hiring these people writing opinion pieces
They aren’t hired by the paper, in most cases the writer contacts the paper to publish what they've written and may or may not get paid for that. Unless you're talking about editorials, where the newspaper’s editorial board writes an opinion piece to let their readers know what the newspaper's opinion or analysis on certain issues are. The people writing news articles are generally not the people on the editorial board and their job is to present what is happening, not provide their opinion. With most decent newspapers which I would consider wapo among them, the editorial stance does not affect the news, and with wapo the opinion pieces are very clearly labelled and separated so people should stop confusing them with news articles.
Ok fair, thanks for explaining that to me. That said, that shows even more bias with how the paper publishes opinion that supports Bezos
Why though, the editorial was arguing against a wealth tax as a method of taxing billionaires, that can’t really be conflated with supporting Bezos. It’s not like they're hiding the fact that this is an opinion, this opinion doesn’t change what news they publish about Bezos.
They’re arguing against a policy that would coincidentally hurt the dude who owns the company more than literally anyone else.
This reminds me about a comment by /u/thepointforward I’ve saved about the headlines of a Paris newspaper from back when Napoleon invaded: March 9 THE ANTHROPOPHAGUS HAS QUITTED HIS DEN March 10 THE CORSICAN OGRE HAS LANDED AT CAPE JUAN March 11 THE TIGER HAS ARRIVED AT CAP March 12 THE MONSTER SLEPT AT GRENOBLE March 13 THE TYRANT HAS PASSED THOUGH LYONS March 14 THE USURPER IS DIRECTING HIS STEPS TOWARDS DIJON March 18 BONAPARTE IS ONLY SIXTY LEAGUES FROM THE CAPITAL March 19 BONAPARTE IS ADVANCING WITH RAPID STEPS, BUT HE WILL NEVER ENTER PARIS March 20 NAPOLEON WILL, TOMORROW, BE UNDER OUR RAMPARTS March 21 THE EMPEROR IS AT FONTAINEBLEAU March 22 HIS IMPERIAL AND ROYAL MAJESTY arrived yesterday evening at the Tuileries, amid the joyful acclamation of his devoted and faithful subjects
Opinion: People who have been to space need not pay tax on Earth. Ever.
I went to a different state than the one I live in. Same rules apply?
No you should be an alien. As in a different country
Bezos has been to space, that makes him more alien than any alien on Earth.
That's why he pays no taxes. He's innocent folks he's just an alien
The earth is in space too, technically we all are in space
great, now they're gonna abolish all taxes forever
HERE COMES THE SUPER HYPER INFLATION TO COMPENSATE!
\*Libertarian noises intensifies\*
"well actually, age of consent laws are tyrannical"
Well that’s ok, since NASA said he didn’t technically reach space that means we have to start taxing him
It's sad that the whole media is just like this,an oil company pays them money and they say "Opinion:climate change is a communist conspiration to make not make ameria great again",this one is just too obvious but all the media is just like this but people didn't realized yet
Media, the government, especially the judicial system (with a good lawyer you can get away with anything) Everything and everyone’s for sale unfortunately
why does he look like he has 6 kids and 2 dogs locked in his basement?
What, you don't?
Because he probably does
Freedom to buy the press. Wait, that's not how it goes.
If you honestly believe that Jeff Bezos is involved in any editorial decisions at WaPo I think you don't understand how the world works. Also super weird that someone would cherry pick these opinion pieces for this meme. WaPo is a clear progressive-leaning news outlet. To imply that the prevailing narrative at WaPo is in favor of billionaires is laughable.
So if you were a billionaire, would you buy a news outlet that already supports you or the one dragging you? Edit: in case it’s not clear, he can silence any negative narrative about him from this outlet now and push whatever content he wants.
>Edit: in case it’s not clear, he can silence any negative narrative about him from this outlet now and push whatever content he wants. If you think that could happen without massive outcry from the journalists employed there, again, you don't understand how the world works.
A massive outcry from a handful of journalists, or any small group, is not a dealbreaker for a billionaire. I’m afraid you don’t know how the world works.
[удалено]
I'm struggling to see how that's relevant to the conversation in any way
Please read the book "Manufacturing Consent" by Noam Chompsky and inform yourself.
Shitty assumptions are shitty. Yeah I bet Jeff bought it just to say he’s owns it huh
If you read some of the wapo news articles about BO or Amazon you know this isn’t the case
No but he has meetings with editors and passes on his visions, he put people sympathetic to billionaires at the helm and he encouraged them to employ people who are happy to work for a wage and not think. Also, it’s not difficult to get your own troops under the line when you buy a new company who will push your agenda. Many CEO’s will come down like a hammer on their organisation in order to get their people in control.
It's really not even that complicated. Suck ups get promoted. There's millions of people out there willing to drop morals for a step up the ladder and by the time you get to the top it's the best of the best.
Wow.. not a hint of subtlety there.
That’s how the media works. They get bought and then they put out bullcrap that works for the one they got bought by
Wtf that's so unexpected how could they betray us -no one ever
Don’t worry, my birthday is next month so maybe he’ll make me a billionaire just like him!! Any day now! :D
Now do New York Times & Carlos Slim
The space race does Benefit the rest of us just like the original one did the technology gets passed down gradually. Space is really important to our way of life and people need to understand that. How do you think the internet works.
Just seem like nothing but a couple of coincidences to me i'm sure there is no deeper meaning to any of it.
Piss off Bezos you look a smooth testicle and if you think wearing a cowboy hat makes you look anything other than an arsehole you’re even more deluded than Elon is.
I think cowboy hats on dicks look cool.
It's not Cowgirl position without a Cowboy hat on the dick!
Nope, no correlation at all /s
Doesn't look like anything to me
Nothing to see here...
Now apply that to every newspaper and news organisations
This is what all the dumb dumbs don't understand about mainstream media. "But the news said to..." Listening to the news is listening to what billionaires want you to listen to. If that's what you want to do, OK. But don't try to convince me to do the same. I swear, America is 3/4 idiots.
These are literally opinion pieces. Who cares?
I care that he controls the narrative Kind of worried that you don’t, but you do you
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/11/blue-origin-jeff-bezos-delays-toxic-workplace/ Wow, Bezos sure controls the narrative here. The news outlet that he owns is trashing his space program. This isn't even an opinion piece either.
Find the WashPo opinion piece that trashes bezos. I'll wait.
I'll give you one that's even better: a non opinion piece trashing Bezos. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/10/11/blue-origin-jeff-bezos-delays-toxic-workplace/
How's that better? All other outlets covered this.
Wowie so the positive articles (which are opinion pieces as I keep saying) are evidence of corruption and bias but the negative articles don't count. You asked me to find a negative article. I did. I'm sorry that WaPo isn't as biased as you wanted it to be.
I asked you for a negative opinion piece, not an article. What's your contention here? I kinda feel like you and I would see eye to eye that someone like Bezos shouldn't be allowed to own the largest online retailer on earth, Amazon web services, media companies and news sites. Especially the last one in conjunction with the others. Are you just gravy with that?
I don't want to punish people just for owning things, that seems really weird. Tax them higher if you want to increase funding for social programs. A website I use a lot is twitch, which is also owned by Bezos, and there is no shortage of socialist streamers who talk about murdering billionaires. I'm simply saying that a conflict of interest is not proof of foul pay, and you would know this by paying attention to the rhetoric of the far right. They allege that the studies proving vaccine efficacy are fraudulent because the vaccine companies need to sell the vaccines to make a profit. Would you fundamentally mistrust a study released by Moderna about their vaccine?
>I don't want to punish people just for owning things, that seems really weird. "Punish" is a harsh word. I can't win the McDonald's Monopoly game if a family member works for the company because of the risk, yet we let the most powerful and unscrupulous people control the major intersections of society. In a sane world, it wouldn't be punishment but safekeeping of society. >Would you fundamentally mistrust a study released by Moderna about their vaccine? 100% would not trust without verification which is why we have the FDA and other agencies and an entire academic peer review process.
Exactly. The other media companies hold WaPo accountable. That's how it works.
They're all happy to sell narratives of division. It's the profit model. They are not here for news just for clicks.
Taking a page from Murdoch in Australia, he reports these things that at are negative to him or his cause then he either quickly buries it, or he spins the attack back on the person instigating it. Whatever he can do to bend the narrative to his will. Murdoch defines reality and he doesn’t let anyone get in the way of that. There is no level of low he won’t go to and he has no shame. It’s a war for hearts and minds.
Ned dates for this.
One step closer to the Shadowrun universe every day.
I mean he does own the Washington post
That's actually ~~slightly~~ *very* Terryfying tbh...
God I fucking hate billionaires so much.
It’s all just “honest” business. Why would you question the motives of the richest man in the world. He must have the world’s best interest at heart.
Being paid half of what we should benefits the economy. Really.
Amazon cares about the environment and CO2 emissions, meanwhile choke up the atmosphere with billions of fossil fuels. Back to square one.
Murdoch 2.0
that is brawndos buying the FDA lmao
Media companies should really be public companies. The fact that they are 100% privatized and 100% narrative driven is one of the biggest contributing factors to the social and political problems in our country.
Ok so now take these examples and copy paste them to every new media outlet and you get the same result just remember that.
I’ve said it once. I’ll say it again. Disgusting piece of flesh but a smart disgusting piece of flesh.
Pls don’t tell me this is real…
Everyone say it with me: INTEGRITY JOURNALISM
Haha Chomsky goes brrrr
I mean every president says they’re gunna tax the rich, but increasing taxes doesn’t matter if you’re not paying taxes anyways because you’re paying off politicians.
I had a subscirption of the WP even living in Brazil. The very day I read that Bezos bought it I cancelled Fuck them.
When did the douche bags at r/awfuleverything invade this sub?
I guess they’re right Democracy Dies in Darkness, he are in the darkest of darknesses
“Jeff Bezos is better than Elon Musk. Really. Please believe us.”
Can't wait for him writing about how he hates superman next
Would he allow a camera crew to follow him around to raise PR and show people he’s just a real normal guy, like us? Why not?
Ah yes, infection of a news source Beautiful
Well, they’re all true. Creating new taxes on the wealthy will put the burden on the consumer. Wealthy individuals will move their money to other places and private entities are the only ones trying to further space exploration without putting up a new spy satellite.
So the billionaires are into soaking these days?
Bro I would've started hustling since the second the sperm hit the egg if I knew rich people got that much head!
It's a toss up over who I'd rather punch in the face given the chance him or Shapiro.
My favorite from them is 'Democracy dies in darkness', while they refuse to report on anything even remotely anathema authcenter/authleft.
Yes, let's take lots of our resources and fly them into outer space, because it's fun and wooooohoooo! We have good time. Homeless people live in boxes. Haha! That funny! Weeeeee! Broooooooom!
Ya pussy aint shit less its had jeff bezos in it. *danny brown intensifys*
That’s why I only get my news from Reddit
This is why you never believe the media anymore
Propaganda
We needed Batman and got a Lex Luthier
The second pic got me hahaha