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

241–250 of 305 posts

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

#241

Post by oh_my_goodness »

next_xibalba wrote: post #158
Larrikin wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what scenario does a fascist not restrict freedom of the press as one of their steps?

It is a necessary but not sufficient condition. But this is not that. This is, “you don’t have unfettered access to personnel and facilities.” Fascism would be “if you print that we will arrest you and maybe shut your operation down.” And maybe a paramilitary squad of goons will fire bomb your offices in the meantime. This will read as snark, but I swear it is not: read about the truly fascist regimes of history. The…

We've all read about them. The key lesson in every one of those stories is this: don't wait for the entire building to burn down before you pull a fire alarm.

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

#242

Post by rtpg »

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…

I do enjoy the theory that everyone was cynically posturing for 4 years during Biden and are now _also_ cynically posturing for Trump, because it aligns with a belief that a lot of powerful people seem to have extremely malleable beliefs.

It is a bit more interesting than "everyone took their mask off the day after the election". Plenty of hard-line right wing people in the world, of course, but at one point if you're that deep in the right all the posturing pre-2024 would be really hard to do. But if it's all cynical then any amount of posturing makes sense!

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

#243

Post by hobs »

next_xibalba wrote: post #158
Larrikin wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In what scenario does a fascist not restrict freedom of the press as one of their steps?

It is a necessary but not sufficient condition. But this is not that. This is, “you don’t have unfettered access to personnel and facilities.” Fascism would be “if you print that we will arrest you and maybe shut your operation down.” And maybe a paramilitary squad of goons will fire bomb your offices in the meantime. This will read as snark, but I swear it is not: read about the truly fascist regimes of history. The…

It doesn't read as snark, it reads as a god of the gaps argument from all the people wishing we weren't doing what we are doing.

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

#244

Post by rtpg »

throwworhtthrow wrote: post #143
coliveira wrote: post #91

The ideal solution is to stop reading newspapers/sites owned by Bezos. I give the WP zero credibility for anything that is not factual. Even then they will distort the facts with opinions that are aligned to Bezos.

The same week that WaPo announced their new editorial policy, I added a uBlock Origin rule to delete the opinion sidebar. It's basically ads run by Jeff Bezos now. There's no reason to expose oneself to it. Their news reporting is, for now, still decent (and retains its familiar slant).

The editorial section is really embarrassing. It wasn't really great before but now so many "Editorial Board" pieces are some of the most fact-free power-praising pieces. I rolled my eyes at the "democracy dies in darkness" stuff but that was at least something.

It's fun to jump into the comments, they added voting to the comments and Wapo editorials are really not coming off well.

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

#245

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

pestat0m wrote: post #75
metabagel wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, Poynter. https://www.poynter.org/

"Your browser is out of date. Update your browser to view this site properly." it always makes me sad when i see this. you are not reaching your target audience. fyi this seems to be a cloudflare thing. i see it everywhere. The World Wide Web seems to be going down a dark path. perhaps i do need to update my browser, but why should that matter for just reading a news site. it's like someone wants you to not have acce…

Works fine here, firefox/linux with ublock origin

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

#246

Post by rtpg »

mmooss wrote: post #172
ilamont wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WSJ is not owned by Jeff Bezos, but by another billionaire Rupert Murdoch. By all means skip the Wall Street Journal's sneering editorials, but don't ignore the reporting. For example, the Theranos scandal was blown open by the WSJ's John Carreyrou. They've done good reporting on Tesla, Epstein, Amazon, and others.

How do you see the WSJ as not biased, when it's owned by Murdoch, who openly interferes in and biases Fox News, as has been demonstrated numerous times including in massive losses in court. Do you think Murdoch wouldn't do that at the WSJ? With that signal and the editorial page, I think it's wishful thinking to think the rest isn't biased - people just don't want to lose that institution. Much can be done without th…

The core idea with this stuff is you can know about the bias and read with that in mind.

You can treat even the facts with doubts, and understanding that the descriptions used can be influenced by what the writers believe. You can come away and consciously say "I know nothing more about the world than I did before reading this article, except for what Murdoch thinks about this".

And sometimes you'll see something that is "merely" true and you can absorb that information. Or mentally correct based on the biases.

Information collection works even when the person presenting the information has an agenda! It's often possible to mentally unbias reporting when you have a good understanding of the paper's tendancies, and then pull out useful information!

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

#247

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

platevoltage wrote: post #81
metabagel wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally, The Guardian has a lot of U.S. readers. I regularly read and donate to The Guardian. Their U.S. and California coverage is very good and seems to be continually improving. Axios has an article about The Guardian's success in the U.S., but I don't have access behind the paywall. https://www.axios.com/2025/05/06/the-guardian-us-expansion Better resource: https://uploads.guim.co.uk/2025/09/11/Guardian_Annua…

I'm one of them. I don't love that I have to overseas to find reliable news on my own country.

Not sure what the verb was that is missing here, but The Guardian has offices in the US, reporters across the country, articles written solely for its US audience. If you only care about who owns it, then I guess it still counts as an overseas operation, but in most other senses, it really isn't. Also, by that metric, Fox News is an overseas entity.

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

#248

Post by morshu9001 »

scottlamb wrote: post #218
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 pub…

I agree she would've been the better choice, but a supposedly unbiased newspaper can't also make such an endorsement, they had to pick one.

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

#249

Post by mmooss »

rtpg wrote: post #246
mmooss wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you see the WSJ as not biased, when it's owned by Murdoch, who openly interferes in and biases Fox News, as has been demonstrated numerous times including in massive losses in court. Do you think Murdoch wouldn't do that at the WSJ? With that signal and the editorial page, I think it's wishful thinking to think the rest isn't biased - people just don't want to lose that institution. Much can be done without th…

The core idea with this stuff is you can know about the bias and read with that in mind. You can treat even the facts with doubts, and understanding that the descriptions used can be influenced by what the writers believe. You can come away and consciously say "I know nothing more about the world than I did before reading this article, except for what Murdoch thinks about this". And sometimes you'll see something tha…

Those are very good points and I agree to a degree ... but ...

You overestimate your and my ability to not get fooled, even when reading and thinking critically. In studies, more educated people are more easily fooled because they think they can detect it.

> "I know nothing more about the world than I did before reading this article, except for what Murdoch thinks about this".

Right, but how is that worth your time? It's not worth my time. There are still plenty much more trustworthy sources out there.

If I'm stuck reading a WSJ article, I do the same as you. But why not find something better?

Adding to my prior comment: The more important the subject is, the more likely they will try to manipulate you.

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

#250

Post by bpt3 »

slg wrote: post #195
bpt3 wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of thousands upon thousands of documented accounts from eyewitnesses and participants? I'm aware of what you're trying to do, but there is a difference between stating a generally accepted fact that has a tiny faction of dissenters (e.g. the earth is round) and something that is not and is therefore considered an opinion.

>Because of thousands upon thousands of documented accounts from eyewitnesses and participants? Then why can't you accept the "thousands upon thousands of documented accounts from eyewitnesses and participants" of him committing war crimes? >I'm aware of what you're trying to do, but there is a difference between stating a generally accepted fact that has a tiny faction of dissenters (e.g. the earth is round) and som…

Because the definition of a war criminal is something who was convicted of a war crime, not being accused of committing them or observed doing something that could be considered one.

You can't fact check opinions, no matter how morally superior they are to another one, so I don't know what your point is there.

Post reply on HN