Nine days after The New York Times reported about the political symbolism of an upside-down American flag that flew at U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s home, the Washington Post acknowledged it had the same story more than three years ago and decided not to publish it.
The Post’s story was both an extraordinary example of journalistic introspection and an illustration of how coverage of the Supreme Court has changed since the incident itself, shortly after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol insurrection.
That day, some of the demonstrators who marched in support of former President Donald Trump carried the upside-down flag. Both newspapers reported that the same symbol was displayed outside of Alito’s home in Fairfax County, Virginia, before President Joe Biden’s inauguration.
Alito has said that his wife, Martha-Ann Alito, raised the flag as part of a dispute with neighbors who had placed “personally insulting” yard signs directed at them. Judges traditionally avoid partisan symbols to maintain the appearance of neutrality in political disputes that may come before them.
For journalists, it raises a question: Should a public official’s family be held to the same standards as that official themselves?
Democracy Dies When the Press is Owned by Billionaires.
But he promised to give his money away when he dies. Don’t you like charity?
Is that the name of his mistress?
Probably, just look for the person made of plastic and trying to look 18 at 40.
Let’s make sure that happens soon then.
That’s not how those schemes work.
Buffet, Gates, the Patagonia family, etc., all those Billionaires do is transfer all their wealth, tax free, into “charitable” entities that their descendants can continue to live off of, and profit from, indefinitely.
That by itself is sinister, but the worst part is that the majority of people actually believe they’re really giving away their wealth. So they cheat the system, that they already rigged, and it actually gives them a better public image.
Eh, people always bring up Bezos but there’s not really any evidence that he’s exerted any editorial influence. The original interview with the WaPo editor is an interesting insight into the publishing process.
And yes, I’ve seen the memes where WaPo has pro-Amazon editorials. But that does not reflect reality. Go to their website and search for “Amazon” to see what I mean.
Edit: funny how people stop replying below when I asked for evidence of this. People just love to believe the easiest conclusion
If you don’t think ownership is involved in who gets hired and who becomes an editor and the kind of choices they make… I have a bridge to sell you.
Bezos’ influence comes entirely by hiring the exact type of people who would bury this fucking story.
You mean rube-ass civility fetishists?
And that editor was hired by Bezos? Suuure
Find me one former staff from WaPo who says Bezos exerted control. 1 person.
Edit: of course the replies stop when I ask for evidence
I think you’re missing what people are saying. They’re saying it’s not about exerting outward influence, but about the editorial bent of the newspaper. What to chase, what not to publish, who to piss off, who not to piss off, what to spend resources on or not. No one can show you an example of this kind of influence in a lemmy comment section. You’d need a research grant and a year’s worth of a team’s dedicated investigation into word choice with inside sources telling them stories that were chased that never got published for some flimsy reason, etc. These things aren’t so neat and concise as to fit into a meme.
That’s not how this type of influence is exerted. It’s done by putting people in charge who will run it in a way that will keep their boss happy, which then leads to them hiring people who will keep their boss happy, and so on and so forth.
Editorial discretion, self-censorship, or pink slips, that message is going to do one thing: not rock the billionaire’s boat.