DrakeMaijstral

A recent article written by Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept alleges that a number of people who work for, or continue to be otherwise paid by, WaPo have strong ties to MbS's regime (see https://theintercept.com/2018/10/15/the-washington-post-as-it-shames-others-continues-to-pay-and-publish-undisclosed-saudi-lobbyists-and-other-regime-propagandists/ for reference). This includes a number of people who Hiatt oversees, like Carter Eskew, Ed Rogers, and David Ignatius, to name a few.

I see an update posted a day after the article came out that says that lobbying firms Glover Park (Carter Eskew, founder) and BGR (Ed Rogers, chairman) have ended their contracts with the Saudi kingdom, though whether the aforementioned article played a role in those contracts being canceled is up in the air.

Given that a number of prominent WaPo staff have had financial ties to MbS for some time (including WaPo's owner, Bezos, who has featured in a number of photo-ops with MbS), my question for the both of you is: How do you feel knowing that WaPo has helped promote MbS as a 'reformer', despite seemingly-obvious human rights violations? Do you think WaPo is changing direction here, and if so, do you feel that change is moving in a positive or negative direction?

Thanks!

He did as you said, but unfortunately, no one on reddit can hear him speak.

Why does UNU only work with Chrome?

Perhaps, perhaps not. I figured it was worth asking.

This is possible, /u/ethniccake. The AMA ended not too long after I posted this question, too, so they potentially didn't see it at all. Oh well.