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

Washington Post editorials omit a key disclosure: Bezos' financial ties

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 305 posts

Re: Washington Post editorials omit a key disclosure: Bezos' financial ties

#161

Post by psychoslave »

findthewords wrote: post #147
softwaredoug wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These billionaires don't have a solid feedback loop back to reality

Think about the world's poorest man, and how disconnected he is from the rest of humanity. Now think of the world's richest man. They are equally disconnected.

Hmm, the initial comment was disconnection from realty, not humanity. Most likely, reality as, all this daily throttle that recalls you that you are not the center of the universe and you have to been to its laws which were not fine tuned to please human desire if you want to accomplish anything. In that sense most humans are closer to the poorest man.

Re: Washington Post editorials omit a key disclosure: Bezos' financial ties

#162

Post by JeremyNT »

IIAOPSW wrote: post #132

Its impressive how well Bezos has convinced everyone to stop trusting WaPo rather than WaPo convincing everyone to trust Bezos. A paper owned by a wealthy financial interest was hardly unique or novel at the time he took them over, and no one would have been more concerned about it than they already were, and all he had to do was not be overt in his influence and bias of it, but he couldn't refrain.

> Its impressive how well Bezos has convinced everyone to stop trusting WaPo rather than WaPo convincing everyone to trust Bezos. A paper owned by a wealthy financial interest was hardly unique or novel at the time he took them over, and no one would have been more concerned about it than they already were, and all he had to do was not be overt in his influence and bias of it, but he couldn't refrain.

My hypothesis is that his current heavy handed editorial intervention is designed to convince only a single person: the President of the United States.

It's presumably worth burning the paper's reputation in order to curry favor with a mercurial and vengeful autocrat who controls the power of the federal government's purse.

In 3 (or 7?) years, perhaps he will reevaluate.

Re: Washington Post editorials omit a key disclosure: Bezos' financial ties

#163

Post by mmooss »

jonas21 wrote: post #40
davisr wrote: post #3

If you think this kind of reporting is cool, you should donate to https://fair.org . Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) has been exposing two-faced news for decades. They are worthy of your attention.

FAIR has its own biases, and these can be quite strong (have a glance at the studies on their website and judge for yourself). IMO, the Columbia Journalism Review ( https://www.cjr.org ) is a better source for media criticism.

Also Nieman Lab: https://www.niemanlab.org/

Press Gazette (UK): https://pressgazette.co.uk/

A great daily aggregator (with links to more) is Mediagazer: https://mediagazer.com/

Re: Washington Post editorials omit a key disclosure: Bezos' financial ties

#164

Post by slg »

bpt3 wrote: post #155
mrguyorama wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except, the news calling, for example, Bush Jr a "War criminal" is exactly objective. His Casus Belli was false, and he knew that. We invaded sovereign countries illegally. Would you read news that openly called him a war criminal? Reality gets extreme all the time. If you police the language more than the reality, you are just making the problem worse. You are forcing people to pretend reality isn't so bad just so y…

Was GW Bush convicted of any war crimes? If not, then he isn't a war criminal. You can argue that he should be, and I probably would agree with you, but an organization supposedly dedicated to unearthing biases in the media should not inject their opinions into their own reporting.

That is a silly standard. Hitler was never convicted of war crimes, would you object to someone calling him a war criminal?

Re: Washington Post editorials omit a key disclosure: Bezos' financial ties

#165

Post by dragonwriter »

ecshafer wrote: post #46
davisr wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please, do explain to everyone what you think is biased about it, and why.

Their headlines include lines about marching against fascists and calling people toadies. This would indicate their bias is rather left.

I mean, if the ground truth was that fascism did not exist and no people were toadies, sure.

OTOH, posting something that only makes sense in that context in 2025 would indicate a bias that is rather Right.

Re: Washington Post editorials omit a key disclosure: Bezos' financial ties

#166

Post by dragonwriter »

bpt3 wrote: post #155
mrguyorama wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except, the news calling, for example, Bush Jr a "War criminal" is exactly objective. His Casus Belli was false, and he knew that. We invaded sovereign countries illegally. Would you read news that openly called him a war criminal? Reality gets extreme all the time. If you police the language more than the reality, you are just making the problem worse. You are forcing people to pretend reality isn't so bad just so y…

Was GW Bush convicted of any war crimes? If not, then he isn't a war criminal. You can argue that he should be, and I probably would agree with you, but an organization supposedly dedicated to unearthing biases in the media should not inject their opinions into their own reporting.

> Was GW Bush convicted of any war crimes? If not, then he isn't a war criminal.

No, if he wasn't convicted, he is not a convict and a government grounded in the rule of law cannot treat him as a criminal.

Conviction doesn't retroactively create the crime.

Re: Washington Post editorials omit a key disclosure: Bezos' financial ties

#168

Post by seattle_spring »

fdschoeneman wrote: post #115

I agree that Bezos should have disclosed his links to the construction through Amazon, but I also think every single reporter for NPR, including and especially the one who wrote this, should disclose their personal, family, and political relationships to political parties and politicians before reporting on them. One standard.

You're saying that the rank-and-file employees of a public radio station should be held to the same standard as billionaire owners of private news media conglomerates?

Re: Washington Post editorials omit a key disclosure: Bezos' financial ties

#169

Post by morshu9001 »

neaden wrote: post #104
mhb wrote: post #102

I’ve Been at NPR for 25 Years. Here’s How We Lost America’s Trust. https://www.thefp.com/p/npr-editor-how-npr-lost-americas-tru...

What does this have to do with the article?

Article is NPR's

Re: Washington Post editorials omit a key disclosure: Bezos' financial ties

#170

Post by bpt3 »

terminalshort wrote: post #136
senderista wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> always extremely conservative You have a pretty idiosyncratic definition of "conservative"

The typical "we have two right wing parties." It's a stupid pedantic thing people on the left like to do.

It's really the people on the far left, who think that way, way more than 10% of the US is progressive or socialist/communist and wonder why they can't win any elections.
Post reply on HN