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

21–30 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#21

Post by bitshiftfaced »

coldpie wrote: post #16
Molitor5901 wrote: post #11

To play Devils Advocate for a moment: Why do we need, or even want, a newspaper to endorse a President? How does it not undermine a paper's journalistic ethics to be neutral and fair?

I actually agree with you, newspapers really shouldn't be doing this. Our major local paper in the Twin Cities basically torched its reputation by endorsing wildly unqualified candidates for city offices (like, one guy they endorsed for Minneapolis city council didn't even live in Minneapolis). They recently decided to stop doing endorsements at all, which I think is the right decision. But that's not what happened h…

[flagged]

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#23

Post by TMWNN »

coldpie wrote: post #16
Molitor5901 wrote: post #11

To play Devils Advocate for a moment: Why do we need, or even want, a newspaper to endorse a President? How does it not undermine a paper's journalistic ethics to be neutral and fair?

I actually agree with you, newspapers really shouldn't be doing this. Our major local paper in the Twin Cities basically torched its reputation by endorsing wildly unqualified candidates for city offices (like, one guy they endorsed for Minneapolis city council didn't even live in Minneapolis). They recently decided to stop doing endorsements at all, which I think is the right decision. But that's not what happened h…

[flagged]

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#24

Post by drewbug01 »

bitshiftfaced wrote: post #21
coldpie wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually agree with you, newspapers really shouldn't be doing this. Our major local paper in the Twin Cities basically torched its reputation by endorsing wildly unqualified candidates for city offices (like, one guy they endorsed for Minneapolis city council didn't even live in Minneapolis). They recently decided to stop doing endorsements at all, which I think is the right decision. But that's not what happened h…

[flagged]

“Had”, not “has”, a long history of not endorsing candidates. They’ve been endorsing since the 80s.

The proper framing is “the owners stepped in to change the policy, to mirror the same policies they had before the 80s”.

Whether that’s right or wrong to do is a separate question. But framing this as though it has been editors going rogue or something is just not what’s happening at all.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#25

Post by Molitor5901 »

bitshiftfaced wrote: post #21
coldpie wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually agree with you, newspapers really shouldn't be doing this. Our major local paper in the Twin Cities basically torched its reputation by endorsing wildly unqualified candidates for city offices (like, one guy they endorsed for Minneapolis city council didn't even live in Minneapolis). They recently decided to stop doing endorsements at all, which I think is the right decision. But that's not what happened h…

[flagged]

I saw that but I'm not sure I see the "long history". From Eisenhower to Carter, then from Carter to now, that's not much of a long history of non-endorsement. The Post is taking a very strong stance here and it will be interesting to see if this stands up in 2028. The LA Times may have left the door open to future endorsements, but not the Post.

Better question: Why now? What changed for them? Was it declining revenue/readers, an overhaul of ethics or process? I can't wait to read the tell all some day about these decisions.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#26

Post by taylodl »

Molitor5901 wrote: post #12
coding123 wrote: post #6

There is definitely a quiet support among the faang owners for Trump.

I think they, like even some on the left, have reasoned that Trump will only be there for four years. That's it. He's gone, or in jail. That's four years they know who their opponent will be and the Democratic Party can prepare. Thinking a long game, it is possible the left has given up and said fine, let's get it over with.

Or maybe Big Tech has swung to the right since the Trump administration better aligns with their power lust

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#27

Post by Molitor5901 »

krapp wrote: post #19
Molitor5901 wrote: post #11

To play Devils Advocate for a moment: Why do we need, or even want, a newspaper to endorse a President? How does it not undermine a paper's journalistic ethics to be neutral and fair?

Which is worse, a newspaper expressing an opinion or a newspaper being forbidden from expressing an opinion?

Yes.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#28

Post by bitshiftfaced »

Molitor5901 wrote: post #11

To play Devils Advocate for a moment: Why do we need, or even want, a newspaper to endorse a President? How does it not undermine a paper's journalistic ethics to be neutral and fair?

I think people "need" their publications to do this in the sense that the publication may worry about losing readership for not "doing their part to support the morally correct candidates." But you're right. Ideally a publication would report the objective reality and let its readers decide what to make of it.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#29

Post by bitshiftfaced »

Molitor5901 wrote: post #25
bitshiftfaced wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I saw that but I'm not sure I see the "long history". From Eisenhower to Carter, then from Carter to now, that's not much of a long history of non-endorsement. The Post is taking a very strong stance here and it will be interesting to see if this stands up in 2028. The LA Times may have left the door open to future endorsements, but not the Post. Better question: Why now? What changed for them? Was it declining reven…

* 1877 to Eisenhower

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#30

Post by TMWNN »

kccoder wrote: post #17
Molitor5901 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they, like even some on the left, have reasoned that Trump will only be there for four years. That's it. He's gone, or in jail. That's four years they know who their opponent will be and the Democratic Party can prepare. Thinking a long game, it is possible the left has given up and said fine, let's get it over with.

I haven't met a single person on the left with the mindset you described. I'm not saying they don't exist, I just can't imagine it represents more than a fraction of a percent of the left. It seems like more on the left believe that if Trump is elected, we are unlikely to see another fair election.

>It seems like more on the left believe that if Trump is elected, we are unlikely to see another fair election.

Don't listen to what they say, Look at what they do.

Breaking Points back in July, while discussing the Trump-Biden debate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV8ULfwTneE> (which I highly recommend watching; it's the single best sum-up), pointed out two things for those who claim (to believe) the above:

* If TrumpNaziKKK being reelected means "no more elections ever", shouldn't Democrats have originally chosen someone other than a living corpse as his opponent?

* While discussing how the many plans among Democrats like Newsom, Whitmer, etc. (and their successors) for 2028 were disrupted/forced up by the potential to replace Biden (before Kamala's abrupt coronation), they again pointed out the paradox of on the one hand claiming that Trump will abolish elections, and on the other hand having plans for running to replacing Trump in 2028.

Read this June New York Times interview of Whitmer. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/22/magazine/gretchen-whitmer...> Strange, how she doesn't say (despite being very specific about things like the plot against her) that "if Trump wins, there won't be elections in 2028 and all non-MAGAtards will be executed by Trumptroopers". You'd think that would be something of sufficient urgency to repeat at every public opportunity. Almost as if actual Democratic leaders don't really believe the rhetoric they have so successfully foisted upon their supporters, including 75% of Redditors.

Another example: Post-Trump/Biden debate, Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) explicitly denying that Trump's reelection will threaten American democracy https://www.bangordailynews.com/2024/07/02/opinion/opinion-c...>.

Yet another example: After discussing Golden's op-ed, Ezra Klein citing other Democrats who privately admit to him https://x.com/Timodc/status/1811136469911711877> that a) they don't believe Trump is an "existential threat to democracy", and don't know why others say that, and b) that's why they aren't speaking out about Biden stepping down, because they believe the damage to their own careers from doing so is a greater threat than Trump winning

Yet another example, perhaps the most prominent of all: Biden telling George Stephanopoulos that if he loses to Trump then, well, "I'll feel, as long as I gave it my all and I did as goodest as I know I can do, that's what this is about". If he was the only person who can save the country from Orange Hitler, would that really be the extent of Biden's reaction? Really?!?

Post reply on HN