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

211–220 of 305 posts

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

#211

Post by goatlover »

bpt3 wrote: post #178
slg wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I would say that an organization that needs to be highly objective should not call him one. They can certainly point out that he was the leader of a group that was systematically killing millions of people with physical or cultural attributes he deemed undesirable and people will reach the same obvious conclusion about him.

Or they could just say Hitler committed war crimes but killed himself before he could be put on trail. Because that's what he did. It's not an opinion.

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

#212

Post by morshu9001 »

drak0n1c wrote: post #108
neaden wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this have to do with the article?

The hollowing out of the readership by ideologically partisan staff is what led to publications becoming overly dependent on the subsidy of wealthy owners, rather than a wider pool of paid subscribers.

Never thought of it this way before. Maybe, but are there papers that remained balanced without losing too many subscribers? Tech age has been overall tough for them.

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

#213

Post by jedberg »

serial_dev wrote: post #184
p_j_w wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think many people, even here, are infected with “It can’t happen here.”

The best predictor of future events is past experience. Every US president in history has left office peacefully, the most probable outcome is that future presidents will too. Similarly, some people always think that the current president will crown himself a king and the Other Party will never ever be able to get into power. And these people have been so far always wrong. I’m not saying it can’t happen this time, bu…

> The best predictor of future events is past experience.

In the absence of any other data, sure. But we have lots of other data here. The first being that he didn't leave peacefully last time.

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

#214

Post by [deleted] »

mmooss wrote: post #159
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.

I think many people (and the parent comment) are getting played because they don't realize the game and its stakes: 'Trust' is an issue under the old rules, in a context where an essentially democratic, free society was desired by all and where therefore public trust and a well-informed public mattered. The new rules are about power alone, which is essentially anti-democratic. Bezos has power and he demonstrates it -…

[deleted]

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

#215

Post by tlogan »

JeremyNT wrote: post #162
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 i…

[flagged]

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

#216

Post by bigyabai »

tlogan wrote: post #215
JeremyNT wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 i…

[flagged]

Iunno, I'm willing to give Trump a fair shake but none of those descriptors seem particularly wrong to me. Trump runs on quid-pro-quo politics, for better and worse.

It stands to reason that the most blatantly-corrupt people in America are now in a race to the bottom to buy out their pardon and negotiate protectionist foreign policy.

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

#218

Post by scottlamb »

morshu9001 wrote: post #180

Article start mentions WaPo not endorsing Harris, as if they're supposed to. I was glad hearing it, but turns out it's only because they have a new master due to Bezos-Trump ties. Wonder about LA Times too, they used to also endorse Dems.

> Article start mentions WaPo not endorsing Harris, as if they're supposed to. I was glad hearing it, but turns out it's only because they have a new master due to Bezos-Trump ties.

Right: it's not just that they didn't endorse Harris. [1] It's that they had a 36-year tradition of endorsing a presidential candidate, had planned to endorse Harris, and then were overridden by their owner in a way that became really public. I expect the editorial positions (or lack thereof) to be chosen by senior journalists, not billionaires.

My subscription may or may not be among the 300,000 cancellations mentioned in the story. I turned off autorenew nearly a year ago; my subscription expires in a few days.

[1] Though I did feel that endorsement would be appropriate. I voted for her, and everything that's happened since has only confirmed to me that she would have been a far better choice than Trump.

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

#219

Post by buran77 »

strictnein wrote: post #199
gryfft wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The best predictor of future events is past experience. I have never died before, not once in my life. The most likely outcome is that I will live forever.

> I have never died before, not once in my life. The most likely outcome is that I will live forever. They didn't say that this is always true for every situation forever. They said "The best predictor of future events is past experience". Keyword is "best". You being alive today is the best predictor of you being alive tomorrow, next week, next month, or next year.

What do you do when the model you know to be best ("past experience") consistently fails to predict anything after an agent of chaos is introduced to the mix? Do you still stand by it? Can you really say past experience consistently predicted the events of this year alone?

If you're in the middle of a nuclear winter do you still insist summer is just a few months away based on past experience? And if you hear someone saying it will you believe it's anything other than disingenuous or ignorant?

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

#220

Post by Swenrekcah »

serial_dev wrote: post #184
p_j_w wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think many people, even here, are infected with “It can’t happen here.”

The best predictor of future events is past experience. Every US president in history has left office peacefully, the most probable outcome is that future presidents will too. Similarly, some people always think that the current president will crown himself a king and the Other Party will never ever be able to get into power. And these people have been so far always wrong. I’m not saying it can’t happen this time, bu…

> Every US president in history has left office peacefully,

Every president except the currently sitting one. Yes, past behaviour is often a good predictor for future behaviour.

Post reply on HN