According to a report by the National Public Radio, on Monday, over 200,000 people cancelled their digital subscriptions to the publication. The publication also saw a flurry of resignations from journalists over its refusal to endorse a presidential candidate- neither Trump nor Harris. This marks a notable shift for the publication which has historically endorsed candidates in every presidential election since 1988. Meanwhile, polls suggest there's a pressing crisis of trust deficit in US Media.

Has American Media Been Defeated in the US Elections?

The Washington Post on Thursday updated the top of Amber Heard's op-ed with an editor's note. Heard in the&nbsp;op-ed spoke about surviving domestic abuse. On Wednesday, a jury ruled a judgement in favour of Johnny Depp, 58, saying that Heard, 36, had defamed her ex-husband thrice in the op-ed. The op-ed was published in December 2018. In the verdict, the court awarded $10.35 million to Depp in damages and $2 million in her defamation countersuit.&nbsp;

On Thursday, Heard’s op-ed was altered with an editor’s note, which reflects on the journey of the case since it began. In response to Johnny Depp suing Heard for a 2018 defamatory article in June 2022 "following a trial in Fairfax County, Virginia Circuit Court, a jury found the actress accountable on three counts for the following statements, which Depp claimed were false and defamatory."

The statements are:-&nbsp;

1) 'I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change.'

2) 'Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture's wrath for women who speak out.'

3) 'I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real-time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.'&nbsp;

"The jury separately found that Depp, through his lawyer Adam Waldman, defamed Heard in one of three counts in her countersuit," the post mentioned.&nbsp;The verdict alleged that Depp, through his lawyer, Adam Waldman, allegedly defamed Heard in one of three counts in her countersuit.&nbsp;

Legal analyst Emily D. Baker says the case was well-followed by people globally, therefore, not taking the op-ed down and letting people know what happened is a good move.&nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/amber-heard-plans-to-appeal-ruling-that-she-defamed-johnny-depp-484578">Amber Heard plans to appeal ruling that she defamed Johnny Depp</a>

Calling the verdict "shocking," Roy Gutterman, a professor at Syracuse University's Newhouse School, said it is difficult to evaluate the long-term effects of the defamation decision. The decision might prevent speakers and writers from addressing potential sensational issues, he added. He further said that the revelations made during the trials did not prove much but revealed the volatile relationship the two actors had.&nbsp;

Depp had previously lost a libel suit in the United Kingdom in November 2020, when he sued British tabloid The Sun for referring to him as a "wife-beater." The actor again attempted to overturn the decision in March 2021, which was overruled, leading Depp to sue Heard directly later.&nbsp;

During the trial, Heard revealed that the op-ed's first draft&nbsp;was produced by the American Civil Liberties Union and reviewed by three teams of lawyers before being finalised. The actress testified that the headline in the online version of the newspaper, which featured the term "sexual violence," was neither written nor approved by her. She also added that the online version differs from the one done for the print newspaper. "A transformative moment for women," was the print’s headline.&nbsp;

While testifying in the trials, Heard said she was sexually assaulted&nbsp;by Depp. The allegation was denied by the latter.

This claim was then sealed by the UK court from public view at Heard’s request.&nbsp;She also said that she was proud of the op-ed and maintained that every word that was written was true.&nbsp;

Responding to why she took part in the op-ed, Heard said: "I was looking forward to the opportunity to lend my voice to what I thought was a great cause, which is just a conversation around women's issues and gendered issues that I think the whole country was having at that time."

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/entertainment/wait-what-saudi-man-wishes-to-marry-amber-heard-post-defamation-trial-heres-what-we-know-485234">Wait, what! Saudi man wishes to marry Amber Heard post defamation trial? Here's what we know</a>

Following the verdict, Depp stated in a statement that he wanted the truth to come out with the lawsuit. He also added that six years ago, his life was ruined because of the op-ed that framed false allegations against him, labelling him a criminal. Heard’s accusations had a "seismic impact on my life and my career," Depp said, adding that "six years later, the jury gave me my life back."

Meanwhile, Heard said that the verdict was a "setback" for women. "I believe Johnny's attorneys succeeded in getting the jury to overlook the key issue of Freedom of Speech and ignore evidence that was so conclusive that we won in the U.K. I'm sad I lost this case. But I am sadder still that I seem to have lost a right I thought I had as an American — to speak freely and openly," she stated after the trials ended.&nbsp;

The Washington Post on Thursday updated the top of Amber Heard's op-ed with an editor's note. Heard in the op-ed spoke about surviving domestic abuse. On Wednesday, a jury ruled a judgement in favour of Johnny Depp, 58, saying that Heard, 36, had defamed her ex-husband thrice in the op-ed.

The Washington Post on Thursday updated the top of Amber Heard's op-ed with an editor's note. Heard in the op-ed spoke about surviving domestic abuse. On Wednesday, a jury ruled a judgement in favour of Johnny Depp, 58, saying that Heard, 36, had defamed her ex-husband thrice in the op-ed. The op-ed was published in December 2018. In the verdict, the court awarded $10.35 million to Depp in damages and $2 million in her defamation countersuit. On Thursday, Heard’s op-ed was altered with an editor’s note, which reflects on the journey of the case since it began. In response to Johnny Depp suing Heard for a 2018 defamatory article in June 2022 "following a trial in Fairfax County, Virginia Circuit Court, a jury found the actress accountable on three counts for the following statements, which Depp claimed were false and defamatory." The statements are:- 1) 'I spoke up against sexual violence — and faced our culture's wrath. That has to change.' 2) 'Then two years ago, I became a public figure representing domestic abuse, and I felt the full force of our culture's wrath for women who speak out.' 3) 'I had the rare vantage point of seeing, in real-time, how institutions protect men accused of abuse.' "The jury separately found that Depp, through his lawyer Adam Waldman, defamed Heard in one of three counts in her countersuit," the post mentioned. The verdict alleged that Depp, through his lawyer, Adam Waldman, allegedly defamed Heard in one of three counts in her countersuit. Legal analyst Emily D. Baker says the case was well-followed by people globally, therefore, not taking the op-ed down and letting people know what happened is a good move. Also Read: Amber Heard plans to appeal ruling that she defamed Johnny Depp Calling the verdict "shocking," Roy Gutterman, a professor at Syracuse University's Newhouse School, said it is difficult to evaluate the long-term effects of the defamation decision. The decision might prevent speakers and writers from addressing potential sensational issues, he added. He further said that the revelations made during the trials did not prove much but revealed the volatile relationship the two actors had. Depp had previously lost a libel suit in the United Kingdom in November 2020, when he sued British tabloid The Sun for referring to him as a "wife-beater." The actor again attempted to overturn the decision in March 2021, which was overruled, leading Depp to sue Heard directly later. During the trial, Heard revealed that the op-ed's first draft was produced by the American Civil Liberties Union and reviewed by three teams of lawyers before being finalised. The actress testified that the headline in the online version of the newspaper, which featured the term "sexual violence," was neither written nor approved by her. She also added that the online version differs from the one done for the print newspaper. "A transformative moment for women," was the print’s headline. While testifying in the trials, Heard said she was sexually assaulted by Depp. The allegation was denied by the latter. This claim was then sealed by the UK court from public view at Heard’s request. She also said that she was proud of the op-ed and maintained that every word that was written was true. Responding to why she took part in the op-ed, Heard said: "I was looking forward to the opportunity to lend my voice to what I thought was a great cause, which is just a conversation around women's issues and gendered issues that I think the whole country was having at that time." Also Read: Wait, what! Saudi man wishes to marry Amber Heard post defamation trial? Here's what we know Following the verdict, Depp stated in a statement that he wanted the truth to come out with the lawsuit. He also added that six years ago, his life was ruined because of the op-ed that framed false allegations against him, labelling him a criminal. Heard’s accusations had a "seismic impact on my life and my career," Depp said, adding that "six years later, the jury gave me my life back." Meanwhile, Heard said that the verdict was a "setback" for women. "I believe Johnny's attorneys succeeded in getting the jury to overlook the key issue of Freedom of Speech and ignore evidence that was so conclusive that we won in the U.K. I'm sad I lost this case. But I am sadder still that I seem to have lost a right I thought I had as an American — to speak freely and openly," she stated after the trials ended.

The Washington Post fixes Amber Heard's Op-Ed from 2018 post verdict

China has announced that it will expel American journalists from three major US newspapers, in one of the communist government's biggest crackdowns on the foreign press and escalating a bitter row with Washington.

The decision, effective immediately, will require US nationals working for the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal to return their press accreditation within 10 days, if their credentials expire before the end of 2020.

The move came as the superpowers also feuded over the coronavirus pandemic, with US President Donald Trump provocatively branding it the "Chinese virus".

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/mind-your-own-business-china-to-trump-after-he-calls-covid-19-chinese-virus-287042">Mind your own business: China to Trump after he calls COVID-19 'Chinese virus'</a>

China said the expulsions were in retaliation for Washington's decision to cut the number of Chinese nationals allowed to work for its state-run media on American soil.

"In recent years, the US government has placed unwarranted restrictions on Chinese media agencies and personnel in the US, purposely made things difficult for their normal reporting assignments, and subjected them to growing discrimination and politically-motivated oppression," China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said.

The expulsions "are legitimate and justified self-defence in every sense,'' it added.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/chinese-authorities-using-visas-as-weapons-against-foreign-press-report-283792">Chinese authorities using visas as weapons against foreign press: Report</a>

It said the journalists at the three newspapers must hand back their credentials within 10 days, and highlighted they would also not be able to work in the semi-autonomous cities of Hong Kong and Macau.

Beijing also ordered the papers, as well as Voice of America and Time magazine, to declare in writing their staff, finances, operations and real estate in China rules similar to those recently imposed on Chinese state media by Washington.

The foreign ministry said the measures "are entirely necessary and reciprocal" moves that China "is compelled to take in response to the unreasonable oppression the Chinese media organizations experience in the US".

Watch: China revokes 3 American Journalists of Wall Street Journal

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/china-revokes-3-american-journalists-of-wall-street-journal-281718/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

The row was ignited last month when the US reclassified Chinese state-run media operating in the United States as foreign missions.

China then expelled three other Wall Street Journal reporters, two Americans and one Australian, over what it deemed a racist headline by the US newspaper.

Those were the first outright expulsions by China of a foreign journalist since 1998, according to the Foreign Correspondents' Club of China.

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said following the latest move against the three newspapers that China was wrong to equate state-run media, which answer to Beijing, and independent US news outlets that can freely report and ask critical questions.

"I regret China's decision today to further foreclose the world's ability to conduct the free press operations that, frankly, would be really good for the Chinese people in these incredibly challenging global times, where more information, more transparency are what will save lives," Pompeo said in a statment on Wednesday.

China has announced that it will expel American journalists from three major US newspapers, in one of the communist government's biggest crackdowns on the foreign press and escalating a bitter row with Washington.

China has announced that it will expel American journalists from three major US newspapers, in one of the communist government's biggest crackdowns on the foreign press and escalating a bitter row with Washington. The decision, effective immediately, will require US nationals working for the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal to return their press accreditation within 10 days, if their credentials expire before the end of 2020. The move came as the superpowers also feuded over the coronavirus pandemic, with US President Donald Trump provocatively branding it the "Chinese virus". Also read: Mind your own business: China to Trump after he calls COVID-19 'Chinese virus' China said the expulsions were in retaliation for Washington's decision to cut the number of Chinese nationals allowed to work for its state-run media on American soil. "In recent years, the US government has placed unwarranted restrictions on Chinese media agencies and personnel in the US, purposely made things difficult for their normal reporting assignments, and subjected them to growing discrimination and politically-motivated oppression," China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said. The expulsions "are legitimate and justified self-defence in every sense,'' it added. Also read: Chinese authorities using visas as weapons against foreign press: Report It said the journalists at the three newspapers must hand back their credentials within 10 days, and highlighted they would also not be able to work in the semi-autonomous cities of Hong Kong and Macau. Beijing also ordered the papers, as well as Voice of America and Time magazine, to declare in writing their staff, finances, operations and real estate in China rules similar to those recently imposed on Chinese state media by Washington. The foreign ministry said the measures "are entirely necessary and reciprocal" moves that China "is compelled to take in response to the unreasonable oppression the Chinese media organizations experience in the US". Watch: China revokes 3 American Journalists of Wall Street Journal The row was ignited last month when the US reclassified Chinese state-run media operating in the United States as foreign missions. China then expelled three other Wall Street Journal reporters, two Americans and one Australian, over what it deemed a racist headline by the US newspaper. Those were the first outright expulsions by China of a foreign journalist since 1998, according to the Foreign Correspondents' Club of China. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said following the latest move against the three newspapers that China was wrong to equate state-run media, which answer to Beijing, and independent US news outlets that can freely report and ask critical questions. "I regret China's decision today to further foreclose the world's ability to conduct the free press operations that, frankly, would be really good for the Chinese people in these incredibly challenging global times, where more information, more transparency are what will save lives," Pompeo said in a statment on Wednesday.

China to expel US journalists, escalates bitter row with Washington

This is one film that everyone will be waiting for&nbsp;with baited breath. Ace filmmaker Steven Spielberg&#39;s&nbsp;new drama The Post will feature Hollywood&#39;s two big wigs- Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks.&nbsp;

The film&#39;s trailer was released on Wednesday and it looks like a film that will be high on performances. Based on a real-life story, it has Streep playing America&#39;s first female newspaper publisher of The Washington Post, Kay Graham fighting the givernment to publish the secret Panama papers along with the editor of the newspaper Ben Bradlee, played by the veteran Tom Hanks. The papers proved that how the government had lied about the scope of the Vietnam War.&nbsp; 
 
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5WmbUHtxGf8" width="560"></iframe>

&nbsp;

One can&#39;t help but think about how accurately timed the film&#39;s release is as America struggles to keep the press free. The film will be releasing in December this year and from the looks of the trailer, it is going to be one stellar film.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

This is one film that everyone will await with baited breath.

This is one film that everyone will be waiting for with baited breath. Ace filmmaker Steven Spielberg's new drama The Post will feature Hollywood's two big wigs- Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks. The film's trailer was released on Wednesday and it looks like a film that will be high on performances. Based on a real-life story, it has Streep playing America's first female newspaper publisher of The Washington Post, Kay Graham fighting the givernment to publish the secret Panama papers along with the editor of the newspaper Ben Bradlee, played by the veteran Tom Hanks. The papers proved that how the government had lied about the scope of the Vietnam War. One can't help but think about how accurately timed the film's release is as America struggles to keep the press free. The film will be releasing in December this year and from the looks of the trailer, it is going to be one stellar film.

The Post trailer: Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks team up for Steven Spielberg's new drama

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump should not be elected as the next US president as he is &quot;unfit&quot; for the post and makes &quot;crude generalisations&quot; about nations and religions, two of America&#39;s most influential newspapers have said in their editorials, Indian news agency PTI reported today.&nbsp; 
 
Editorial boards of The Washington Post and The New York Times yesterday made a strong case that Trump should not be elected as the president. 
 
The editorials came ahead of an all-important first presidential debate in Hofstra University tonight. 
 
&quot;It is beyond debate that Donald Trump is unfit to be president,&quot; said The Washington Post, while &#39;The New York Times&#39; argued the case in its lead editorial &#39;Why Donald Trump should not be president&#39;. 
 
A day earlier &#39;The New York Times&#39; endorsed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton as the next president of the US. 
 
The elections for the next occupant of the White House would be held on November 8. Latest polls show that the two are in a dead heat. 
 
About a month ago, Trump, 70, was trailing Clinton by more than seven-eight points on an average. 
 
&quot;Voters attracted by the force of the Trump personality should pause and take note of the precise qualities he exudes as an audaciously different politician: bluster, savage mockery of those who challenge him, degrading comments about women, mendacity, crude generalisations about nations and religions,&quot; The New York Times editorial board wrote. 
 
&quot;Our presidents are role models for generations of our children. Is this the example we want for them?&quot; the daily asked. 
 
As Americans prepare to watch the first presidential debate, The Washington Post editorial board said the challenge for today&#39;s audience was to avoid the trap of thinking of this debate as yet another opportunity for &quot;the real Trump&quot; or even a &quot;new Trump&quot; to emerge, either stylistically or substantively. 
 
&quot;It&#39;s way too late for that. The real Trump has been before the citizenry ever since he announced his candidacy in a rambling jeremiad that blamed Mexico for &#39;sending&#39; &#39;rapists&#39; to the United States as illegal immigrants. It has been said that the true test of an ordinary person&#39;s character is how you behave when no one is watching,&quot; it said. 
 
&quot;The corollary standard for a presidential candidate could be: how you behave repeatedly in public, before the one big night when everyone is watching. Even by that more forgiving standard, Trump has already flunked,&quot; The Washington Post said. 
 
The editorial said Trump had amply demonstrated his &quot;unworthiness&quot; to occupy the Oval Office. 
 
&quot;It&#39;s beyond his capacity in the upcoming 90-minute question-and-answer sessions to reverse or even substantially modify that conclusion,&quot; the daily said. 
 
Meanwhile, the Trump Campaign slammed &#39;The New York Times&#39; for endorsing Clinton. 
 
&quot;The New York Times&#39; Editorial Board is the embodiment of the rigged system Donald Trump is running against,&quot; said Jason Miller, senior communications adviser to the Trump Campaign. 
 
(PTI)

In their editorials both newspapers wrote Trump is not fit to be President, who makes 'crude generalisations' about countries and religions

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump should not be elected as the next US president as he is "unfit" for the post and makes "crude generalisations" about nations and religions, two of America's most influential newspapers have said in their editorials, Indian news agency PTI reported today. Editorial boards of The Washington Post and The New York Times yesterday made a strong case that Trump should not be elected as the president. The editorials came ahead of an all-important first presidential debate in Hofstra University tonight. "It is beyond debate that Donald Trump is unfit to be president," said The Washington Post, while 'The New York Times' argued the case in its lead editorial 'Why Donald Trump should not be president'. A day earlier 'The New York Times' endorsed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton as the next president of the US. The elections for the next occupant of the White House would be held on November 8. Latest polls show that the two are in a dead heat. About a month ago, Trump, 70, was trailing Clinton by more than seven-eight points on an average. "Voters attracted by the force of the Trump personality should pause and take note of the precise qualities he exudes as an audaciously different politician: bluster, savage mockery of those who challenge him, degrading comments about women, mendacity, crude generalisations about nations and religions," The New York Times editorial board wrote. "Our presidents are role models for generations of our children. Is this the example we want for them?" the daily asked. As Americans prepare to watch the first presidential debate, The Washington Post editorial board said the challenge for today's audience was to avoid the trap of thinking of this debate as yet another opportunity for "the real Trump" or even a "new Trump" to emerge, either stylistically or substantively. "It's way too late for that. The real Trump has been before the citizenry ever since he announced his candidacy in a rambling jeremiad that blamed Mexico for 'sending' 'rapists' to the United States as illegal immigrants. It has been said that the true test of an ordinary person's character is how you behave when no one is watching," it said. "The corollary standard for a presidential candidate could be: how you behave repeatedly in public, before the one big night when everyone is watching. Even by that more forgiving standard, Trump has already flunked," The Washington Post said. The editorial said Trump had amply demonstrated his "unworthiness" to occupy the Oval Office. "It's beyond his capacity in the upcoming 90-minute question-and-answer sessions to reverse or even substantially modify that conclusion," the daily said. Meanwhile, the Trump Campaign slammed 'The New York Times' for endorsing Clinton. "The New York Times' Editorial Board is the embodiment of the rigged system Donald Trump is running against," said Jason Miller, senior communications adviser to the Trump Campaign. (PTI)

Trump should not be US president: NYT, Washington Post

the-washington-post

The Washington Post, News on The Washington Post, stories on The Washington Post, articles on The Washington Post, The Washington Post stories at Wion, The Washington Post news, The Washington Post latest news

the washington-post

Has American Media Been Defeated in the US Elections?

The Washington Post fixes Amber Heard's Op-Ed from 2018 post verdict

China to expel US journalists, escalates bitter row with Washington

The Post trailer: Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks team up for Steven Spielberg's new drama

Trump should not be US president: NYT, Washington Post