• HuntressHimbo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      28 days ago

      I get that its important to you they endorsed someone but do you really want to be spending money at the place that lied about the Oct 7th sexual assault stories and then refused to admit it? Like really we have forgotten already?

      • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        27 days ago

        The thing with subscriptions is that one can cancel any time. I missed the Oct 7th stuff because I never read the NYT. I am about to start. If I smell bullshit, I will cancel and support a different outlet. No biggie.

        Bezos messed up though because his WaPo stunt made me look at my subs with Amazon. So now I have cancelled WaPo, Audible, Kindle Unlimited, Amazon cloud storage, Prime Video ad-free, and we have just committed to purchasing significantly less from Amazon. If that works out, I will cancel Prime. The net effect is (or will be) tens of thousands of dollars less spent with Amazon per year.

        • taiyang@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          27 days ago

          Honestly, they’re cherry picking. On average their news is fine. You want to diversify your sources, else you end up in a weird bubble. Just remember that if you come up on a year subbed, you can get it for a dollar a week again by talking to support to cancel.

          I don’t see NYT being worth it’s base price but the promotional price is fine.

    • femtech@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      27 days ago

      Ehh, nyt is putting out so many anti trans articles and using lies and misinformation so them endorsing Kamala doesn’t mean much.

      • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        27 days ago

        It isn’t about the Harris endorsement. It is about billionaire interference with the editorial board. Both the LA Times and the Washington Post had their endorsements ready for publication and in both cases their billionaire owners called in and killed them.

        I don’t need to agree with everything a publication writes. In fact, I want to hear differing opinions and takes. What I want is to know that what I am reading is what the professional journalists in the building wanted me to read and not what some billionaire puppet master told them to say. I need integrity. I also respect a bad take far more than silence and cowardice in the face of adversity.

        EDIT: To clarify…I would not support an outlet that only spews out bad takes either.

    • AlecSadler@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      27 days ago

      I canceled my NYT sub awhile ago, but am considering subscribing again. They aren’t perfect, far from, but I’d take this over fucking WaPo.

  • Jo Miran@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    27 days ago

    TL;DR:

    This unequivocal, dispiriting truth — Donald Trump is not fit to be president — should be enough for any voter who cares about the health of our country and the stability of our democracy to deny him re-election.

    For this reason, regardless of any political disagreements voters might have with her, Kamala Harris is the only patriotic choice for president.