Parts of the industry really are "besieged" due to financial precarity and corporate plunder, but that's not what WaPo is warning about: for them it's some melodramatic anti-Trump thing. Ironically they distract from the real sources of "besiegement" with their flamboyant tactics
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Many local news outlets are at least financially besieged.
@washingtonpost isn't indicative of the industry as a whole. -
I realize that, but ironically the Washington Post actually draws attention away from the legitimately-besieged elements of the industry with its flamboyant tactics
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
People love to defend the idea of a free press and I’m over here in this place called reality wishing we still had one..
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's a paradox. Local newspapers are dying, which is helping the political polarization, and only large flagship papers like WaPo can survive. Someone else pointed out that it might have been a better idea to spend that money on young cub reporters.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
it's proof of just how besieged freedom of speech and the press really is by our current president. ie not at all.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They always can afford what they want. Always!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Meanwhile,
#FreeJulianAssangeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Dude come on
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Well, the WaPo has all that mad Amazon money. Standing on its own it wouldn't have $5 million burning a hole in its pocket.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Sanctimony is expensive, especially during the Super Bowl. Bwaahaaa!!!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They spent money to inform us that they have not spent enough money on proper security details for their reporters
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Real news doesn’t need to pay millions to advertise their validity.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They spend $5.3M on a self-agrandizing ad, but eagerly cover & support Pelosi, et al in not spending $5M for a wall to help ensure the safety & sovereignty of our nation. Sounds about right.

Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A vanity press owned by the richest man on the planet(who directly profits from CIA and Pentagon contracts) buys a 5 million dollar ad in the Superbowl to celebrate journalism.
#latestagecapitalism at it's peak. - 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
your logic implies that businesses only advertise when they're satisfied with the markets' perception of them and they have excess resources. Those are both the literal opposite of the truth. What would motivate you to tweet such a bad take?
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Apparently conservatives do not understand the concept of “marketing” or “advertising.”
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.