Not the poster, but I don't think a newspaper pulling an endorsement out of fear of reprisal is a great sign of a free press (or, to the poster's point, a press you care to pay for.)
I'd rather not pay for that sort of thinking. However, I'd rather have the WaPo in its current form as opposed to severely diminished (or none at all).
No one's too rich to get shot by the world's largest superpower.
Zuckerberg didn't do a giant public 180 for funsies.
I must say though, this "billionaires as terrified victims" narrative is hilarious. I hope the Democratic party rescues these poor billionaires from the man they're publicly supporting!
There's a good summary of all the changes at https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/10/technology/meta-mark-zuck...
> I must say though, this "billionaires as terrified victims" narrative is hilarious.
Do you not think Putin's oligarchs fear him? They're immensely wealthy, but they live within the reach of the guy in charge.
Trump previously threatened Zuck with life in prison. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/28/trump-zuckerberg-el...
This country is filled with tens of millions of people openly defying Trump. None of them have been illegally arrested for it, none of them have been assassinated for it. Reddit's executive team isn't on the run from Trumpian death squads trying to murder them for defying Trump. There is no credible threat to people for defying Trump, least of all to people with the extreme resources available to Zuckerberg and Bezos.
(I don't think they'll be successful in appeasing him, but they're visibly trying.)
Both can be true. I also consider it a failure of regulation and humanity that a billionaire can just own a newspaper and nix stories for clout.
This country was built on privately owned newspapers wielded as weapons by their owners; I'm sure you've heard of Benjamin Franklin. The First Ammendment protects this more than anything else for this reason.