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

a reply to: The2Billies

Exactly! I have not seen the budgets or how this line item is budgeted but the Gov should not be paying for any of this. I don't acre of it is Wash. Post or Sports Illustrated, it should not be what my tax money is spent on. Especially considering how much print media is dead anyway. Almost everyone has cell phones or a computer. If employees or guests need to see this then it can be on their own device and/or PC. My guess is that most of these print media forms in these buildings are bathroom reading material or guest room/waiting room stuff anyway.

a reply to: The2Billies

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.

Or do what public schools do....

Have one computer, and one print subscription people can share if it's absolutely vital they have to use ______ for a report or something.

A few dollhairs a month, and everyone is happy.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
a reply to: Gryphon66

No they didn’t

But when college ban speakers, the ban is applauded.

By the same people who claim that this subscription cancellation is in some way an attack on the press.

Which it most definitely is not

An act of the President of the United States toward the press is not really comparable to an act of an administrator at a State owned College or University. Is it unconstutional? Nah.

All the President did is cancel the government - you and me - paying for thousands of print newspapers that can be accessed for free online. This can't be unconstitutional, all Federal employees, everyone in the US, can go online and read the NY Times and Wash Post, or can pay for their own subscription. Why do liberals want socialism to the point where people should be given free newspapers that most people don't read anyway, because it is so old fashioned and unnecessary when they can read them online?

The subscriptions should never have been happening in the first place.

More than enough taxpayer dollars are wasted as it is. Why would anyone want more going to partisan hack "news" agencies.

And for the anti-Trumpers, if Fox printed a newspaper, would you want your tax dollars paying for subscriptions?

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.

No one is stopping you or anyone else from reading that drivel.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Breakthestreak

The media is supposed to be critical of the administration, without them who is left to call out corruption ?

How does making people go online to read the same information ending media freedom? They are still free to print it. Anyone is free to go online and read it. They can call out corruption without demanding a "free" outdated form of communication (newspaper) for millions of Federal employees. Anyone, even Federal employees can buy their own subscription. This does not impinge on freedom of the press.

As a matter of fact I think the Federal government should end ALL paper subscriptions to ALL newspapers, YES EVEN RIGHT LEANING OR RIGHT WING PAPERS. It is a total waste of taxpayer money. They can access these newspapers online.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: The2Billies

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.

Or do what public schools do....

Have one computer, and one print subscription people can share if it's absolutely vital they have to use ______ for a report or something.

A few dollhairs a month, and everyone is happy.

And why are federal employees who are much better paid than the average citizen incapable of paying to access any newspaper of their choice either online or in print? Why turn it into a giant socialist giveaway to people who earn more than average.

The 2000lb gorilla in the room is continuously avoided: the repeal of Smith-Mundt allowed all major news organizations to become assets of the intelligence community.

The beef isn't as much with a for profit news organization...its with the critters on Capital Hill that have allowed this mess to fester.

If you want propaganda to be kicked out of news, you need to get the propagandists hands tied by reinstating Smith-Mundt.

Or, you know...continue bickering over what is and is not fake news.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
The 2000lb gorilla in the room is continuously avoided: the repeal of Smith-Mundt allowed all major news organizations to become assets of the intelligence community.

The beef isn't as much with a for profit news organization...its with the critters on Capital Hill that have allowed this mess to fester.

If you want propaganda to be kicked out of news, you need to get the propagandists hands tied by reinstating Smith-Mundt.

Or, you know...continue bickering over what is and is not fake news.

Exactly

ALL PRINT media should no longer be paid for by taxpayer dollars, conservative or liberal.

Even the "spooks" (intelligence) can access all media online. There is no reason at all in today's world for taxpayers to purchase paper copies of newspapers that can be accessed online. It is a total waste of money, regardless of the politics involved.

a reply to: bally001

The NY Times is not free online. You can see half a dozen stories for free in a month then you hit a pay wall.
But its only 2 bucks a week so no issues. ( they have a recipe section that is pretty cool)
I do not know about Washington Post. I do read an article or two from them online but not a lot.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: ManFromEurope

WaPo is owned by Bezos.

Why do they need American tax dollars when he makes 150,000 dollars a second? That's right, I said second.

Personally, if these media outlets can't make it without US tax dollars, good riddance. Our media landscape could use a shakeup, and I'm not saying that because of support for Trump, because I'm rather indifferent on him.

The only ones I can at least sympathize with is NPR and PBS as they're not for profit.

Edit: I was operating off the premise as OP said that we were subsidizing, upon further reading I see this is just government subscriptions... I'll leave my comment though.

Bezos already gets American tax dollars from selling amazon cloud services to US government agencies like the CIA.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

One person said one thing about freedom of the press and this thread morphs into some discussion of that.
Its not freedom of speech or freedom of the press that is being squealched here.

Its donny boy pulling up the covers so he cant see the monster in the closet.

Its him trying to ignore the news. If he could he would take a long extended trip to someplace far away right now but he lost that option. So he seeks to control what he sees in his environment.
Kind of like those blackout curtains I had in my first apartment so I didn't have to look at the nasty house next door. The house was still there but I couldn't see it.

Donny Boy can read what he wants and not read what he doesn't want to.

Should we force people to read certain newspapers every day? Ridiculous and totalitarian.

Even Donny Boy has the freedom to choose what he wants to read or not read. Unless you want to deny that freedom to all US citizens. It is his choice.

I won't read the NY Times, or watch CNN or MSNBC or the news on NBC, ABC, CBS, I even don't turn on FOX and don't watch it unless my husband turns it on and then I read while he watches it. I get my news from other sources, many international without skin in the game of US politics, and it is much more balanced and unbiased. Are you going to force me to read the NY Times everyday? That seems to be your point, to force people against their will to read certain publications and to have the government pay for those publications.

originally posted by: The2Billies

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: The2Billies

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.

Or do what public schools do....

Have one computer, and one print subscription people can share if it's absolutely vital they have to use ______ for a report or something.

A few dollhairs a month, and everyone is happy.

And why are federal employees who are much better paid than the average citizen incapable of paying to access any newspaper of their choice either online or in print? Why turn it into a giant socialist giveaway to people who earn more than average.

Ummmm. I offered a very cheap compromise with the caveat if it's absolutely needed for work.

Have one computer, and one print subscription people can share if it's absolutely vital they have to use ______ for a report or something.

One subscription per agency wouldn't be a "giant socialist giveaway" as you put it.

I'm going to be really honest, and please don't take this the wrong way. I often see you have some great points and offer insight that others do not by providing a unique angle... But sometimes that gets lost when you get overtly hyperbolic.

What would you call people who sell their public office, lie about their minority status, and sell government info? You know, like the democratic presidential candidates?

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: bally001

The NY Times is not free online. You can see half a dozen stories for free in a month then you hit a pay wall.
But its only 2 bucks a week so no issues. ( they have a recipe section that is pretty cool)
I do not know about Washington Post. I do read an article or two from them online but not a lot.

And highly paid government employees are free to pay the $2 per week. Taxpayers have no business paying for an outdated form of news for free for highly paid government employees (newspapers are passe).

originally posted by: Tekner

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: ManFromEurope

WaPo is owned by Bezos.

Why do they need American tax dollars when he makes 150,000 dollars a second? That's right, I said second.

Personally, if these media outlets can't make it without US tax dollars, good riddance. Our media landscape could use a shakeup, and I'm not saying that because of support for Trump, because I'm rather indifferent on him.

The only ones I can at least sympathize with is NPR and PBS as they're not for profit.

Edit: I was operating off the premise as OP said that we were subsidizing, upon further reading I see this is just government subscriptions... I'll leave my comment though.

Bezos already gets American tax dollars from selling amazon cloud services to US government agencies like the CIA.

'

Yup, and Amazon is favored to win the Pentagon contract. I'm sure we won't see any intermingling like the passing of Alexa data to the DoD and friends... Or their facial recognition software being at the disposal.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: The2Billies

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: The2Billies

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.

Or do what public schools do....

Have one computer, and one print subscription people can share if it's absolutely vital they have to use ______ for a report or something.

A few dollhairs a month, and everyone is happy.

And why are federal employees who are much better paid than the average citizen incapable of paying to access any newspaper of their choice either online or in print? Why turn it into a giant socialist giveaway to people who earn more than average.

Ummmm. I offered a very cheap compromise with the caveat if it's absolutely needed for work.

Have one computer, and one print subscription people can share if it's absolutely vital they have to use ______ for a report or something.

One subscription per agency wouldn't be a "giant socialist giveaway" as you put it.

I'm going to be really honest, and please don't take this the wrong way. I often see you have some great points and offer insight that others do not by providing a unique angle... But sometimes that gets lost when you get overtly hyperbolic.

You are right, I do get carried away sometimes. Especially after a very stressful few weeks. Put Aunt in Hospice, cleaned and emptied her apartment, Mother taken in ambulance to ER, daughter's Mother-in-law died, husband found out he needs neurosurgery. (all in the last 2 weeks)

So you never know when people need an outlet and why they get carried away.

Thanks for saying I have a unique perspective, I think that is a compliment. This is my safe outlet, so yes sometimes I get overtly hyperbolic when I can't channel my energy elsewhere without hurting the feelings of those around me.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: bally001

I wonder if the savings would help build the wall. That would be a slap in the face for the media.

You do know about appropriation committees and all that right? The court has already told him he cant even use that military money for the wall. How much do you think they could possibly save?
This move is just a childish smear. I doubt he thinks this is going to make these publications start printing lies just to appease his fragile ego. If he does, he had better think again.

If you think that these two publications don’t currently print lies, then you haven’t read them.
Printing the truth is beyond their capabilities.

But in 2025, the Republican who replaces President Trump may reinstate the subscriptions. So hang in there.

a reply to: conspiracy nut

I heard trump assembled a team to find batboy and vampire kid after reading it from his new national Inquirer paper.