8 1 min 1 yr

Actually for much of the past 40 years or whatever, the NY Post has been ” Fox News “. They were cheerleaders for GW Bush and for the Iraq War. Both now are house organs of Trumpism and whatever the Republican Party thinks it is these days. Both entities are controlled by Rupert Murdoch.

The on line NY Post is like RT – no paywall, since who the hell would pay for either.

This wildly biased cover gives a spin on the Biden press conference that few unbiased observers would have given it.

The NY Post has lost a lot of money since forever. Murdoch loves it, and uses his profitable entities to prop up this financially failing entity. This costs the shareholders of NewsCorp money, but Murdoch controls things, which is why the NY Post continues to exist.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

8 thoughts on “NY Post goes full Fox News

  1. so no views on anything other than you don’t like the paper…..

    What is the substance of your post ?

    What is it’s “Issue” ?

    The “wildly biased cover” biased as compared to what ?

    Why should people have to pay for News ?

    Wow glad you found time for this real piece of substance…… lmao…

    but hey if it’s the best you can do….. we’ll accept it as what you have to offer.

  2. Why should people have to pay for News ?

    Because reporters, and editors and newsrooms, and travel cost money. Only a cheapskate miser thinks that he should get the intellectual work of others at no cost.

    And this headline isn’t news in the first place. It’s wildly biased opinion.

    Like this headline back in the day, which inflamed the mob in favor of the ultimately catastrophic Iraq War. You know, the war that you supported, and which you still think was a clever idea.

  3. Papers, as an enterprise are funded entirely by Advertising. Any money they force out of the consumer for access or a copy is an insult to the public….

    That shows a capitalistic philosophy of profit rather than a noble policy of informing…

    We have info, ya want it ? how much ya willing to pay? Then what truly is the goal of the entity to inform the public or make a buck…..

    Charging for the news makes the source un-trustworthy…..

  4. I do not agree with any of that.

    You don’t get free groceries at ShopRite and no one should demand to get the work of full time reporters for free.

    Some very high quality magazines ( say The Economist ) cost more than $100 a year. And are well worth it. They do very good investigative / analytic business and general news programming, some go ten pages long. There’s no way that all that can be funded by advertising alone.

    The successful and profitable papers in the US would include the NYT, WP and WSJ. They all have paywalls. If you don’t want to pay, don’t read it. Reporters cost money.

    Papers made huge errors in the early days of the web by not charging for internet content. That’s exactly why so many papers have cut staff, and are in weak financial shape in time of great technology change.

    You pay for TV news channels.

    Some media elect to be free and supported by ads, but they would tend to be outfits with thin staff.

    Aggregators like Drudge have had a free ride by using the work of others without pay in their business model.

  5. I’m not talking periodicals or specialist publications… I’m talking NEWS daily reporting of events and actions that effect the general public.

    There are two problems with all of todays “News” Profit and Ideology. Those are the current news models two main rails of driving purpose.

    The 4th Estates domain is supposed to be reporting factual truths to inform and letting the chips fall where they may.

    all else is corruption for power and greed.

  6. Reporting the “News” in Politics died August 8, 1974.

    Papers and publications have always had their political biases that’s nothing new nor unacceptable, but the Publications themselves weren’t part of the news that all changed in our lifetime and you can trace it back to then.

    The general public lost their representation and can no longer trust the motivation of the news company. It all changed that year.

  7. At least the NYP had the sense to tell Trump that he had lost, a week or so after the election. Unlike Fox “News” which aided and abetted the “stolen election” lies and sacked the political journalist who correctly called Arizona for Biden on election night.

Comments are closed.