Washington Post Co to buy Slate online mag

[UpInArms]

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/newsfinder/pulseone.asp?dateid=38342.4631075694-830350103&siteID=mktw&scid=0&doctype=806&

SAN FRANCISCO (CBS.MW) -- The Washington Post Co. (WPO) said Tuesday that it has agreed to buy online magazine Slate from Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) . Terms of the deal were not disclosed. Jacob Weisberg will remain editor of Slate, and Slate will continue to be available to users on MSN through links on the MSN portal, the Post said.

...very short newsblurb...

Another independent voice silenced. :(

[jonnyblitz]

1. independent ?

I don't know if I would call it that if it was owned by microsoft. :shrug:

[UpInArms]

2. ah yes, it was a Microsoft outlet

but now you will not even have that diversity

gotta get everyone on the same page, ya know.

Remember how the Whoreshington Post rah-rahhed the war?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=slate+columnist+michael+kinsley&btnG=Search

just go see what Michael Kinsley had to say

(edited for typo)

[Bono71]

3. The Washington Post also backed Kerry...so what is your point?

[UpInArms]

4. yes, they "backed" Kerry with one of the weakest

editorials.

And your point would be?

[Bono71]

5. The Repubs I know think the Post is too liberal, you seem

to think otherwise. Kind of strange.

How about this...it doesn't matter if Slate is owned by Microsoft or the Post as long as it reports the truth, or opines in a manner that is not controlled by the government (either a democratic or republican one).

[UpInArms]

6. would love to have any "news" organization

do that.

Report the news - air all opinions - have an open and free debate.

How I long for the Fairness Doctrine. :sigh:

[UpInArms]

7. here's the WP's own acknowledgement

of their spin (if you missed it)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54944-2004Jun19.html

Last month, the editors of the New York Times published an extensive note to readers acknowledging that several of the paper's prewar stories exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The Times' public editor followed up with another critique. In the aftermath, a handful of readers wrote to me and asked when The Post was going to do the same.

Some of this was directed at the editorial page, which has supported the war. Editorial pages are supposed to take a stand and that's their business, not mine. It's clear now that the press, as a whole, did not do a very good job in challenging administration claims. I have said many times that major news organizations should go back and take a nondefensive look at their prewar coverage. It's okay for ombudsmen to do so but more important for the news organizations themselves to do so.

It's also worth repeating that this was not an easy story to get at. An administration always has an edge. Much of the material was classified. There were no public whistle-blowers and Congress did little or no probing. The notion that Iraq had such weapons was widespread. Nevertheless, the press should have done better. There is no more important story than war.

...more...

[sonicx]

9. Republicans say CNN is too liberal too.

They think *everything* is liberal media, except the hardcore right-wing sources like Drudge and FOX. But many news outlets have crept to the right over the years to try and counter the liberal accusations. Some like NYT still get some decent stories out (and Krugman's good for columns). Some like CNN and MSNBC have turned into mini FOX clones.

[jonnyblitz]

10. I hear ya.

I DO Like Jacob Weisberg too.

[Straight Shooter]

8. Time to cross another one off my list if it leans too far from center

x(