Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#891

Post by dclowd9901 »

dmix wrote: post #510
sgnelson wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While you may not take this as proof it affected this exact decision, it's hard to ignore it as a possible reason. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/10/amazon-wants-to-depose-presi...

Bezos wants to help elect someone who (his lawyers allege) killed a gov contract favourable to his own business? Or did I misread your comment.

It can be hard to understand something if you wish not to understand it.

It’s pretty simple here: he didn’t endorse Trump. But he doesn’t want to get on his bad side in the case he is elected.

Make sure you take a moment to comb your moral fabric and see if that jibes with how you think the world should work.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#892

Post by Bombthecat »

nickff wrote: post #324
lapcat wrote: post #296

Newspapers publish opinions for the same reason that they publish comic strips: people want to read them. Readers seek them out. Newspapers are a business and have to give their customers what they want. The problematic aspect here is that the current business owner, Jeff Bezos, has a conflict of interest. Bezos is making a bad business decision for The Washington Post, sacrificing it and losing readers for the sake…

You seem to be implying that he made a decision based on other business interests, against those of the Post, but there is no support for that in the article. Do you have a source which describes this motive? It seems like not endorsing candidates might be good for the Washington Post's business, by improving its perceived impartiality. In addition to this, the WaPo seems to have spent much of its history not endorsi…

https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-this-the-reason-jeff-bezos-...

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#893

Post by smsm42 »

armada651 wrote: post #729
rayiner wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except in practice their editorial opinions boil down to value judgments that aren’t amenable to such analysis. They weren’t endorsing Harris because of the nuances of tax policy; it’s because they share her views on abortion, immigration, white liability for past racism, etc. These are the subject of moral and political philosophy, not expert analysis. That’s why WaPo has consistently endorsed the same party—even wh…

> They weren’t endorsing Harris because of the nuances of tax policy; it’s because they share her views on abortion, immigration, white liability for past racism, etc. These are the subject of moral and political philosophy, not expert analysis. A candidate's social policies may be more important to some people than their fiscal policies. So an analysis of their social policies would be more useful to those readers t…

Could you point me to such analysis published in WaPo? I mean seriously, it would be nice to have a list of policies that Harris supported before she was VP, during the time she was VP, and now that she is a presidential candidate. Side by side - is the wall stupid or is it necessary? Do we need higher taxes or tax breaks? Do we need to jail marijuana users or leave them alone? Is Israel a genocidal war criminals or our most important ally? Is our immigration policy broken or are we doing the right thing? Is the free speech the foundation of the democracy or dangerous chaos which needs to be controlled? There are a lot of confusion that may be clarified with proper analysts of the candidate's position on such questions.

An article listing analysis like this, with appropriate quotations and explanations would be great. Does WaPo publish stuff like that, consistently, over the length of the campaign? Or would it rather do another "17 reasons why Trump is exactly like Hitler" level analysis?

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#894

Post by smsm42 »

markvdb wrote: post #706
edm0nd wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>by improving its perceived impartiality Can WaPo really be perceived as "impartial" if we know they already were going to endorse Harris?

That is possible if their editorial staff honestly believe two things: - The rule of law and the republic as a process are superior to anything else. - One of the candidates does not subscribe to these sufficiently. In that case, and given the political duopoly, they could still claim to be impartial towards candidates. Their only allegiance/partiality would lie with the rule of law and the republic as a process.

Thinking that one of the candidates will literally destroy the country is some weird meaning of being "impartial" that I have never encountered before.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#895

Post by JeremyNT »

addandsubtract wrote: post #814
rozap wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it opens to them up to retribution from Trump if he wins, which is his entire method of operating. From a game theory perspective it doesn't make sense for them to do an endorsement when a mob boss type character is about to get elected.

"Lets not oppose nazis in case they gain power again." You're morally and humanly bankrupt if you believe and act this way.

> You're morally and humanly bankrupt if you believe and act this way.

Those characteristics are, if not strictly required, at least overrepresented in billionaires. It seems like a reasonable approximation for how Bezos might perceive his situation here.

You don't usually get to be a billionaire by caring very much about morality.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#897

Post by lysace »

hluska wrote: post #609
lysace wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it does seem big in anglo-saxon countries. (I already posted that Wikipedia page, btw.)

I have an eight year old so there’s a big gap between actually starting a comment and posting it. That’s a pretty weak thing to criticize me for.

You're not the only one with kids, but I'm not sure how that is relevant.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#899

Post by [deleted] »

unit_circle wrote: post #566
jrflowers wrote: post #396

I like that many people here have speculated that Bezos simply wants to avoid the ire of a possible Trump administration. This is very charitable, so much so that it ignores another reasonable guess a person could make based off of the same objective information that we all have — that this action is an endorsement, and the person that chose to endorse a candidate did so because he wants them to win. On one hand you…

This is so obviously the nail on the head. Shocked how far I had to scroll

[deleted]

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#900

Post by [deleted] »

zmmmmm wrote: post #496
smsm42 wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that editorial team has some kind of expertise, unavailable to general population, that allows them ecxlusive ability to properly understand current events, seems to have no factual support at all. They are professionals in giving their opinions, it doesn't make their opinions be better that anybody else's. Experience suggests they are usually worse.

> The idea that editorial team has some kind of expertise, unavailable to general population That doesn't make sense to me - they literally spend all day every day absorbing, summarising and writing about context as their full time job. They are trained formally at assessing, evaluating and questioning facts. You can criticise the end result, but I can't see how it's reasonable to say they aren't far better positione…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN