Trump Cancels All Admins' NYT, WaPo Subs: "Will Save 100s Of 1000s Of Taxpayer Dollars"

originally posted by: Chance321
a reply to: jtma508

Considering he's not taking a paycheck I'm not seeing the problem.

In the context of the cost for his golf outings... Him not taking a paycheck is a loaded term, considering he'd get paid less than the cost for his golf trips. Considering he was so critical of Obama for his golf outings (as was I), I do find that aspect hypocritical.

There's no absolving Trump on that front.

Here is a question to those that are saying this is some kinda of censorship..

are any of you current subscribers??

if not, are you going to, to make up for the loss in wages

If you are complaining, and Not going to buy subscriptions

does that make you a hypocrite??


asking for an inkstained friend.....

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Oh, I agree.. isnt it irritating when that other fake reality intrudes on your fake reality?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: 727Sky

That's what dictators do, only positive press is allowed and I'm betting a good contingent of his followers are quite fine with this as they don't support freedom of press let alone freedom for the public.

When you are simply posting lies it's not news.

When an outlet is more concerned with profit and clicks, they're not a fact driven model. A vast majority of outlets are guilty of this entertainment media model, and it's not unique to "left leaning" outlets.

Most don't publish more lies than they do speculator or technically correct material, however many if not most do use loaded terms, buzz words, and leading phrases to push a particular narrative. Many claim this is due to their agenda, their agenda is making money and garnering more consumers than their competitors... It just so happens we live in a society where people would rather consume media curtailed to their beliefs, because they're too thin skinned to see differing views and or don't have the attention span to watch dry unadulterated facts that don't ping at the dopamine receptors.

The branch of FedGov I worked for didn't have too many executive row subscribers to WaPo or NYT - but Jiminy Christmas, the number of Wall Street Journal subscriptions was staggering - and obviously paid for by the agency.

Sometime between 8:30 and 10:30 in the mornings you could find mounds of WSJ in the bathroom stalls after morning constitutionals.

ganjoa

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I agree. And the government does not need to pay for their product. It is not a violation of a free press to not have government subsidies.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I agree. And the government does not need to pay for their product. It is not a violation of a free press to not have government subsidies.

There are plenty of other free online sources that government employees can read. Many of which quote articles that are behind a paywall, so I don't see how this is restricting access to information.

Also, if our agencies are reliant on publicly available information, we have bigger problems than subscriptions IMO.

I guess it is a different way of asking would CNN have any viewers were it not for the contracts with airports, doctor’s offices, etc.?

Only this way we can find out in due time what the lack of government subscriptions does to these newspapers. After all one of the keys to a successful business is to sell a product that people want to buy.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

The employees can pay themselves, nothing is being restricted.

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

No one is being denied access to the NY Times or the Washington Post. Any Federal employee is free to subscribe on their own dime and pay for it.

How is that a dictator move? Saying, we aren't going to spend hundreds of thousands in subscriptions for federal employees to read a newspaper they can access online - or pay for themselves if they want to have a subscription.

Sounds like a cost savings to me. Besides who reads print papers anymore? Environmentally unfriendly, kills trees, uses carbon to make them. Isn't having a print subscription living in the dark ages before the internet?

a reply to: carewemust

Yes and all Federal employees can access both news outlets online without the tax payers paying for an outdated form of obtaining news. If any Federal employee wants a print paper they can pay for it themselves. This is a non-issue in today's world.

a reply to: 727Sky

But that is not what this is.

This.... is Scarlett O'Hara saying "I can't think about that now. I'll think about that tomorrow."

Honestly this is the most childish thing ever. ' We do not want the truth here. We need to be able to keep pretending this is not happening.'

I doubt that this will effect either of these publications bottom line. They do not live and die by a few subscriptions.

What makes trump think these folks wont go and buy their own subscriptions.

Its not like its that much you know... I get a digital subscription to the Times and its $2.00 a week for a ton of content.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

How do you get that it's a subsidy? The govt is paying for a product that I can only assume they see as being beneficial. Ya know, like if you are running a va hospital or any other govt office that serves the public that ends up with people end up sitting around waiting to be served, having some reading material around to distract those people so the are less likely to notice that that 9 o'clock appointment just wasted an hour of your time and you are still no closer to being served as you were when you walked in 20 minutes early for your appointment.
For the White House, it is beneficial to have a wide range of news media because it gives you a sense of where the public stands on issues and even the "fake news" has worth in that it might serve to determine how you should gear your messaging on issues.
Burying you head in the sand seldom offer much in benefits.

a reply to: carewemust

And why should I pay for a Federal employee to get a print paper with my tax dollars when they can access it online and I don't have to pay for it?

It is a travesty that the Federal government pays for ANY print subscriptions for Federal employees. I lived in Germany for 6 years and in Asia for 4 years. I could pay for and get a print subscription to either of these papers if I wanted to read them, and this was before the internet was so widely available.

Today it is a total waste of government money to pay for any print subscription. Period.

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
So banning conservative speakers at universities and colleges so people are unable to hear an opposing viewpoint is perfectly acceptable and openly defended behaviour.

But the cancelling a subscription to a (non partisan and completely unbiased) newspaper is an attack on the freedom of the press and amounts to silencing the opposition?

Got it.

You are so correct. I'd love to see the OP defend this one.

How is banning conservative speakers on US campuses nation wide not silencing the opposition and totalitarian behavior?
Yet you say cancelling a subscription that people can get online for free is dictatorial behavior.

a reply to: dawnstar

Why waste money and pay for it? Anyone in the White House can access it online for free or pay for their own subscription. I think the White House should cancel all print subscriptions, that is a giant waste of money in today's internet world.

Why should we pay for reading material for patients waiting to be seen? My doctors and dentists have the most gosh awful magazines they get for free. I bring my own reading material. What is wrong with people that they don't want to take responsibility for themselves. Heck, nearly everyone has cell phones, read whatever they want free online with their cell phones, or play a game. Sheesh.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
So banning conservative speakers at universities and colleges so people are unable to hear an opposing viewpoint is perfectly acceptable and openly defended behaviour.

But the cancelling a subscription to a (non partisan and completely unbiased) newspaper is an attack on the freedom of the press and amounts to silencing the opposition?

Got it.

Did the Federal government ban speakers at colleges? When?

No liberals have banned conservatives speakers at colleges around the US, and liberals have been defending the suppression of free speech for years now when it comes to conservative speakers.