Non-American here. I’ve been hearing stories about billionaires supporting Trump, including pre-election. Bezos is named. The concern I read of is that Trump’s second term will be directly implementing terrifying policies reminiscent of fascist nations.

Is all this true? It seems deeply disturbing to see support at all let alone before taking the reins, in a ‘pre-emptively supporting the possible implementation of fascism’ sense.

An external perspective here: I think at best it’s going to be a drunken brawl and infighting resulting in a lot of ass kissing and popularity politics.

I don’t think you’re going to get fascism because that relies on some level of competence, order and ideological consistency.

I’m not calling out any individuals for ref, just the entire political landscape, which is something I unfortunately have a fair amount of experience with.

As for supporting the current administration, the American political system is partially pay to play so this is normal regardless of who’s up top.

Billionaires support both sides at the same time. That way they (the billionaires) can't lose.

That's the story most of the media is telling, but... no.

> Mr Shipley said he decided against publishing the cartoon because the paper had just published a column on the same topic as the cartoon and was set to publish another.

> "Not every editorial judgement is a reflection of a malign force … The only bias was against repetition," Mr Shipley said.

I'm inclined to agree with Shipley, since WaPo has of course published pieces vocally critical of Bezos. But if that's all your paper is printing it starts to get a bit old. I'd get sick of it too.

Not everything is a grand conspiracy.

Am I weird here thinking that it's pretty obvious that if you bite the hand that feeds you, there will be consequences?

Perhaps the cartoonist thought it pretty obvious too, yet felt moved to act as she did. If you think keeping your job comes before everything else you are not weird, but might be wrong. At least your opinion might not be universally held.

Part of being a journalist and a cartoonist is being able to speak truth to power. It’s inherent in the duties going with the job.

So it’s not obvious, no.

Speak truth to power? Lol.

Journalists and cartoonists sell the appearance of transgression to make their brand edgy.

You work for power. Speaking truth is just a slogan to assuage your guilt.

That’s deeply cynical, but many journalists I’ve met view their job as a calling and a duty.

Lol. Look up "yellow journalism" - why don't they view their jobs as a legacy of pandering to the rich and lying to the public?

My father was an abusive piece of shit. Should I have not bitten his hand for it because I was living under his roof not out of choice but necessity?

It depends on whether you think you have a job, rights, or a king.

We talk a lot about having the freedom to criticize those in power (and being rich does give you outsized influence and power in the US). But it’s important to test that assertion regularly, otherwise it is just propaganda.

If you cannot publish a cartoon criticizing someone in power, then we do not actually have a free press, no matter what the constitution or the people say. It is the act of testing the assertions without reprisal that grants us the freedom, not the act of simply asserting we have it.

So yes - if one of our foundational freedoms is that the press should be able to ‘bite the hand’ without consequences, that’s exactly what we should expect when someone tests that assertion and we should be uneasy when that isn’t the result.

[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42591221