{"id":2203,"date":"2025-05-12T07:03:21","date_gmt":"2025-05-12T07:03:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.fotobreak.com\/news\/wash-post.html"},"modified":"2025-05-12T07:03:21","modified_gmt":"2025-05-12T07:03:21","slug":"wash-post","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.fotobreak.com\/news\/wash-post.html","title":{"rendered":"Wash post exclusive\u00a0: the sock-eating dryer manifesto (and other laundry conspiracies they don\u2019t want folded)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><\/p>\n<div id='video-container' data-video-id='_VZPrQcFBn4' style='width:100%; height:auto; max-width:587px; position: relative;'>\n<div class='image-video-plugin' style='background:url(\"https:\/\/img.youtube.com\/vi\/_VZPrQcFBn4\/0.jpg\") center no-repeat; background-size: cover;'><\/div>\n<p>        <span class='youtube-play-button'><\/span><br \/>\n        <noscript><a href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=_VZPrQcFBn4\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><\/a><\/noscript>\n    <\/div>\n<p><\/p>\n<h2>Does Jeff Bezos still own the post?<\/h2>\n<h3>Breaking News: Bezos Has Not Traded the Post for a Moon Rocket (Yet)<\/h3>\n<p>Let\u2019s address the elephant in the room, or more accurately, the billionaire in the media conglomerate. Yes, <b>Jeff Bezos still owns *The Washington Post<\/b>*, much like he still owns that suspiciously well-stocked rocket collection and approximately 14% of the world\u2019s smiley-faced Amazon boxes. The man bought the paper in 2013 for $250 million\u2014a sum roughly equivalent to what he earns in the time it takes you to accidentally click \u201cBuy Now\u201d on a pack of dental floss. No, he hasn\u2019t auctioned it off to fund Blue Origin\u2019s espresso machine for Mars. <b>It\u2019s still his<\/b>.  <\/p>\n<h3>But Wait\u2026 Isn\u2019t the Post Just an Amazon Subsidiary for Hot Takes?<\/h3>\n<p>Contrary to rumors that *The Post* now doubles as a Prime delivery hub for spicy op-eds, <b>Bezos owns it personally<\/b>, not through Amazon. Think of it like his pet rock\u2014separate from the empire that sells you actual rocks (gemstone collections, trending this week). The distinction is crucial:  <\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Amazon owns your soul (and your shopping cart).<\/li>\n<li>Bezos owns the *Post*, your dad\u2019s favorite \u201cback in my day\u201d think pieces, and a yacht named \u201cCorporation Tax Avoidance.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>Could He Lose the Post? Only in a Game of Galactic Monopoly<\/h3>\n<p>Unless Bezos suddenly adopts a barter economy (\u201cOne lightly used newspaper for three asteroid mines?\u201d), <b>he\u2019s keeping the *Post<\/b>*. He\u2019s not exactly strapped for cash, unless you count needing $500 billion to build a space elevator as \u201cstrapped.\u201d The real question isn\u2019t ownership\u2014it\u2019s whether the *Post*\u2019s next Pulitzer will be written by AI, a drone, or a very sentient Alexa prototype. <b>Stay tuned.<\/b>  <\/p>\n<h3>Check the Fine Print (Or the Sky for Clues)<\/h3>\n<p>If you\u2019re still skeptical, watch for these signs Bezos owns the *Post*: headlines critiquing corporate tax rates, a 10,000-word expos\u00e9 on \u201cWhy Moon Colonization Needs Better Wi-Fi,\u201d or a coupon section that only accepts Amazon Prime points. <b>The receipts are there.<\/b> And if you spot a paperboy riding a rocket-powered scooter? Yeah, that\u2019s probably just Jeff\u2019s weekend side hustle.<\/p>\n<h2>Is the post liberal or conservative?<\/h2>\n<p>Ah, the million-dollar question\u2014or at least the question worth roughly $3.50 in loose change found under your couch cushions. Is this post <b>wearing a beret and quoting Noam Chomsky<\/b>, or is it <b>sipping black coffee while muttering about \u201cfiscal responsibility\u201d<\/b>? The truth is, it\u2019s neither. It\u2019s more like a politically ambiguous chameleon that changes colors depending on which paragraph you squint at. Think of it as a Rorschach test, but instead of ink blobs, you get hot takes on healthcare reform.<\/p>\n<h3>Exhibit A: The Post\u2019s Alleged Agenda<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><b>If you\u2019re liberal<\/b>, you\u2019ll notice the post uses the word \u201cequity\u201d 12 times and casually mentions \u201ctaxing llamas to fund free avocado toast programs.\u201d Coincidence? Sure, if you think llamas don\u2019t deserve representation.<\/li>\n<li><b>If you\u2019re conservative<\/b>, you\u2019ll spot the phrase \u201cmeritocracy\u201d nestled between jokes about bureaucracy and a <i>very<\/i> serious graph about \u201cthe war on brunch.\u201d Suspicious? Only if you\u2019ve never debated pancake vs. waffle supremacy at a town hall.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3>But Wait\u2014What If the Post Is\u2026 a Centrist?<\/h3>\n<p>Plot twist: Maybe this post is just <b>a sentient TED Talk<\/b> that refuses to pick sides. It\u2019s the Switzerland of SEO content\u2014neutral, vaguely inoffensive, and storing emergency chocolate in a bunker. It\u2019ll passionately argue for <i>both<\/i> \u201cuniversal puppy healthcare\u201d <i>and<\/i> \u201cderegulated hedge fund tickle fights,\u201d because why commit to an ideology when you can commit to chaos?<\/p>\n<h3>The Conspiracy Theory Angle<\/h3>\n<div class='global-div-post-related-aib'><a href='\/news\/where-to-watch-arizona-diamondbacks-vs-new-york-yankees.html' class='post-related-aib'><div class='internal-div-post-related-aib'><span class='text-post-related-aib'>You may also be interested in:<\/span>&nbsp; <span class='post-title-aib'>Where to watch Arizona Diamondbacks vs New York Yankees: don\u2019t miss the ultimate showdown!<\/span><\/div><\/a><\/div>\n<p>Let\u2019s not rule out the possibility that this post is <b>a rogue AI experiment<\/b> designed to radicalize garden gnomes. Or perhaps it\u2019s just a deeply confused bird watcher who accidentally wrote about politics instead of ornithology. Either way, its true allegiance remains as mysterious as the contents of Area 51\u2019s gift shop. Proceed with caution\u2014and maybe a tinfoil hat.<\/p>\n<h2>Is the Washington Times a liberal or conservative?<\/h2>\n<p>If the Washington Times were a animal, it\u2019d be a bald eagle wearing a suit made of American flags\u2014while reciting the Constitution backward. Founded in 1982 by the Unification Church (yes, <i>those<\/i> Moonies, famous for holy newspapers and mass weddings), this D.C. paper has long been a conservative counterweight to its more progressive neighbor, the <i>Washington Post<\/i>. Think of it as the *loud uncle* at Thanksgiving who insists dessert should be served <b>before<\/b> the debate about taxes. Spoiler: It\u2019s about as liberal as a cactus in a snowstorm.<\/p>\n<h3>But wait\u2014it\u2019s named after Washington! That\u2019s neutral, right?<\/h3>\n<p>Ah, the ol\u2019 \u201cGeorge Washington didn\u2019t have a political party\u201d trick. Nice try! The <i>Washington Times<\/i> leans right harder than a Tower of Pisa replica at a GOP convention. Its editorial board has championed small government, tough-on-crime policies, and skepticism of climate science\u2014like if Fox News and a libertarian TED Talk had a baby raised by talk radio. Still unsure? Check their headlines: <b>\u201cTax Cuts: Better Than Kale\u201d<\/b> or <b>\u201cWhy Aren\u2019t Millennials Buying Suburbs?\u201d<\/b> (Note: These are fictional. Probably.)<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><b>Ownership:** Moonies. Enough said.<\/li>\n<li><b>Tone:** Imagine a John Wayne movie narrated by a teleprompter.<\/li>\n<li><b>Letters to the Editor:** \u201cDear Sir, please cancel my subscription. Sincerely, A Vermont Maple Syrup Socialist.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>That said, it\u2019s not <i>all<\/i> flag pins and outrage. The paper occasionally dabbles in centrism like a cat cautiously sniffing a cucumber\u2014before swatting it into oblivion. But if you\u2019re seeking fiery takes on \u201cwoke coffee shortages\u201d or UFO hearings (but only the ones that blame China), you\u2019ve found your print soulmate. Meanwhile, the <i>Washington Post<\/i> is across town, sipping oat milk lattes and muttering about decorum.<\/p>\n<h2>What happened to The Washington Post in 1971?<\/h2>\n<p>Ah, 1971\u2014a year when bell-bottoms were wide, mustaches were wider, and The Washington Post decided to play a high-stakes game of \u201chold my typewriter\u201d with the U.S. government. The drama centered on the <b>Pentagon Papers<\/b>, a <b>7,000-page classified report<\/b> that exposed decades of presidential fibbing about the Vietnam War. Think of it as the WikiLeaks of the analog era, but with more paper cuts and fewer encrypted tweets. When the <i>New York Times<\/i> started publishing excerpts, the Nixon administration threw a legal tantrum, demanding they stop. Enter the Post\u2014like that friend who shows up uninvited to a party with a megaphone\u2014snagging a copy of the papers and declaring, \u201cWe\u2019re hitting \u2018print\u2019 anyway, folks.\u201d<\/p>\n<div class='global-div-post-related-aib'><a href='\/news\/how-to-watch-the-masters-2025.html' class='post-related-aib'><div class='internal-div-post-related-aib'><span class='text-post-related-aib'>You may also be interested in:<\/span>&nbsp; <span class='post-title-aib'>How to watch the Masters 2025: insider tips and live-streaming secrets revealed!<\/span><\/div><\/a><\/div>\n<h3>The Plot Thickens: Nixon\u2019s Legal Team vs. The First Amendment<\/h3>\n<p>What followed was a legal circus where <b>Katharine Graham<\/b> (the Post\u2019s publisher) and <b>Ben Bradlee<\/b> (its editor) became the ringleaders. The government sued the Post to block publication, arguing it threatened national security. The Post\u2019s response? Essentially: \u201cNational security? More like national insecurity.\u201d The case raced to the Supreme Court faster than a journalist chasing a coffee truck. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court sided with the Post, declaring prior restraint a no-go. Fun fact: The decision dropped on June 30, just in time to ruin Nixon\u2019s Fourth of July BBQ plans.<\/p>\n<h3>The Aftermath: Pulitzers, Prestige, and a Side of Existential Dread<\/h3>\n<ul>\n<li><b>Bragging rights secured:<\/b> The Post won a Pulitzer for Public Service, because nothing says \u201cpublic service\u201d like giving the White House an existential crisis.<\/li>\n<li><b>Ben Bradlee\u2019s eyebrows<\/b> became a national symbol of unflappable journalistic resolve (seriously, Google them).<\/li>\n<li>The Post\u2019s defiance set the stage for its Watergate coverage\u2014because why stop at one presidential scandal when you can have two?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div class='global-div-post-related-aib'><a href='\/news\/supreme-concrete.html' class='post-related-aib'><div class='internal-div-post-related-aib'><span class='text-post-related-aib'>You may also be interested in:<\/span>&nbsp; <span class='post-title-aib'>Supreme concrete: why your patio is whispering state secrets (and how to decode them)<\/span><\/div><\/a><\/div>\n<p>So, in 1971, The Washington Post didn\u2019t just report the news\u2014it became the news, armed with ink, grit, and a flair for chaos. Nixon\u2019s team probably wished they\u2019d stuck to burning memos instead of picking a fight with a newspaper that had nothing to lose but its margins.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Does Jeff Bezos still own the post? Breaking News: Bezos Has Not Traded the Post for a Moon Rocket (Yet) Let\u2019s address the elephant in the room, or more accurately, the billionaire in the media conglomerate. Yes, Jeff Bezos still owns *The Washington Post*, much like he still owns that suspiciously well-stocked rocket collection and&hellip;&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.fotobreak.com\/news\/wash-post.html\" rel=\"bookmark\">Read More &raquo;<span class=\"screen-reader-text\">Wash post exclusive\u00a0: the sock-eating dryer manifesto (and other laundry conspiracies they don\u2019t want folded)<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2204,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","iawp_total_views":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2203","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fotobreak.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2203","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fotobreak.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fotobreak.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fotobreak.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fotobreak.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2203"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.fotobreak.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2203\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fotobreak.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2204"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fotobreak.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2203"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fotobreak.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2203"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fotobreak.com\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2203"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}