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

231–240 of 305 posts

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

#231

Post by dullcrisp »

netsharc wrote: post #176
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]

I think the solution should ideally be not electing Trump (or whomever) in a free and fair election. What solution are you suggesting?

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

#232

Post by singleshot_ »

saulpw wrote: post #222
rkomorn wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world's poorest man probably has tens millions of peers within an order of magnitude of "poorness". The world's richest man has at most a few hundred.

Exact numbers as of today: Elon Musk has $500b. 32 other people have at least $50b. 827 people have at least $5b.

Roughly half of Americans have a negative net worth.

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

#233

Post by mossTechnician »

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.

It is a bit ironic that an article criticizing NPR is hosted on TheFP. Especially considering its owner got promoted to the head of a major mainstream news network by one of the richest people in the world.

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

#234

Post by thesmtsolver »

slg wrote: post #73
next_xibalba wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>So it gives the appearance of “opinionated news is good, so long as the opinions are correct.” All news is opinionated news and some opinions are objectively better than others. For example, the simple act of choosing which story to cover is an opinionated choice and if a news outlet decided to cover a random high school teacher the same way they cover the POTUS, that would be an objectively incorrect editorial opin…

Real objectivity would be like BBC calling terrorists “militants”.

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

#235

Post by mhb »

mossTechnician wrote: post #233
drak0n1c wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is a bit ironic that an article criticizing NPR is hosted on TheFP. Especially considering its owner got promoted to the head of a major mainstream news network by one of the richest people in the world.

Then it's irony all the way down. Or just admitting that news takes money.

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

#236

Post by tomhow »

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]

> Why there is so much of TDS on hacker news?

Please don't use epithets like this on HN. Snark, swipes, name-calling are all explicitly against the guidelines. We're trying for curious conversation here, not whatever this is.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#237

Post by adventured »

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…

Bezos is calculating his years remaining with regards to Blue Origin and that a given President can cause severe disruption to the pathway Bezos has in mind for his organization. I'm sure his ideal would be to finely balance WaPo's reputation and his need to placate the current President, and I'm also certain with Trump it's not doable (so he'll sacrifice some of WaPo's reputation to keep progress going on Blue Origin during the Trump years).

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

#238

Post by oh_my_goodness »

vlovich123 wrote: post #76
ecshafer wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen Manhattan Institute, Hudson Institute, or Cato Institute using the term Toady even if technically correct. It is a term almost exclusively used by the left, typically more anti-authoritarian. Maybe you have some libertarian types using it as well.

Why would right-wing leaning think tanks be complaining about right wing authoritarianism they’re in favor of? You’d expect them to trot out this verbiage if a populist left wing politician with authoritarian vibes came to power.

It's not quite that simple, or at least not yet. For example the Cato Institute still seems inclined pretty much towards the rule of law and against autocracy. Perhaps "Yarvin-ists" are in power, but they don't control every voice on the right.

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

#239

Post by [deleted] »

bpt3 wrote: post #144
vlovich123 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would right-wing leaning think tanks be complaining about right wing authoritarianism they’re in favor of? You’d expect them to trot out this verbiage if a populist left wing politician with authoritarian vibes came to power.

You can identify and complain about right wing (or left wing) authoritarianism without hurling insults. A publication failing to do so is a key indication of bias in a specific direction.

[deleted]

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

#240

Post by [deleted] »

bpt3 wrote: post #144
vlovich123 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would right-wing leaning think tanks be complaining about right wing authoritarianism they’re in favor of? You’d expect them to trot out this verbiage if a populist left wing politician with authoritarian vibes came to power.

You can identify and complain about right wing (or left wing) authoritarianism without hurling insults. A publication failing to do so is a key indication of bias in a specific direction.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN