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

261–270 of 305 posts

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

#261

Post by scottlamb »

morshu9001 wrote: post #248
scottlamb wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

To me an unbiased newspaper is one that confines their opinions to the op/ed section, striving for neutrality/objectivity elsewhere. Are you saying this section shouldn't exist at all? Or that it should be limited to...what, something other than politics?

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

#262

Post by tclancy »

serial_dev wrote: post #197
tclancy wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An individual editorial? No. At the meta level when an outlet only allows a specific direction of bias, that doesn't feel like a good idea to accept.

Honest question, don’t all newspapers do this? Sure there are subjects where they publish articles representing different opinions, but on core issues (to them) there is only so much wiggle room before they will pull an opinion piece.

No, typically a paper with a strong editorial bent would have at least a token voice from The Other Side and ideally the editorial page wouldn’t always be six pieces about the president or his party every day, but that was before we got this clown show renewed for a second season.

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

#263

Post by morshu9001 »

scottlamb wrote: post #261
morshu9001 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To me an unbiased newspaper is one that confines their opinions to the op/ed section, striving for neutrality/objectivity elsewhere. Are you saying this section shouldn't exist at all? Or that it should be limited to...what, something other than politics?

Editorials are ok if they showcase a variety of viewpoints, even if it's not balanced. If the board collectively decides on a single candidate, I think most people get the impression that this reflects the newspaper as a whole.

Especially endorsing the same party for nearly 50 years to the point where it's expected as a sign of allegience, and non-allegience if they stop. It meant a lot.

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

#264

Post by nitwit005 »

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 news part of Fox News was essentially fine for a long time. When Trump got angry about their election coverage of Arizona (they correctly called it for Biden), the response was to reorganize the department, and that ceased being true.

Trump was annoyed enough that he started threatening to start a Trump TV network and poach their stars.

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

#265

Post by morshu9001 »

morshu9001 wrote: post #212
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.

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.

Forgot to add that people more often like to read things they agree with, especially if we're talking about paying subscribers.

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

#266

Post by jquery »

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…

They weren't revoked from unfettered access to the Pentagon. They were revoked from all access to the Pentagon. It's hard to be a democratic society when the institutions that make democracy possible are hindered wherever possible.

Fascism is an ideology, an approach towards government. Banning reporters from the Pentagon and the White House can be both legal and fascistic.

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

#267

Post by jquery »

pyuser583 wrote: post #255
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 issues - or did last I checked which was a while ago. They used to claim reporters were biased towards the right. That used to be a left-wing claim, but it’s no longer credible. Something like 90% of reporters are left-wing. Maybe they’ve reformed, and aren’t in the business of providing partisan talking points anymore.

>90% of reporters are left wing

Citation very much needed. Also, what percent of reporting news organization owners are left wing?

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

#268

Post by rtpg »

coliveira wrote: post #258
rtpg wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

These newspapers manipulate not just with opinion, but also with the selection of what to focus on. They want you to care about certain things and not to know or even hear about others. It is a game of molding perceptions daily.

Yes, this is part of the exercise. Gotta think creatively about universes where what's written is what's written and where you could find other information. Primary sourcing is way easier than the past!

It's better when you have newspapers you can trust to do this in a way you like for you, but absent that... time to read a couple different articles

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

#269

Post by rtpg »

mmooss wrote: post #249
rtpg wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?…

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

Very good point, you don't _need_ to read this stuff, and you can go towards things that are "better".

I find that Wapo has decently comprehensive coverage on some issues. The journalists draw "wrong" conclusions, and I just no-op that, but I've found it helpful, and there's often more detail than provided in other places. But I generally do some subsequent research after reading most of their articles. But maybe there's something else I could be reading instead.

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

#270

Post by jquery »

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 -…

IMO, the rules haven't changed at all, shit has always been bad. Ask any Black American. The silver lining to all this open corruption is that even the most milquetoast centrists of 2020 are turning into people calling for actual consequences for the corruption going on in our government.

As unpopular as Bush was in 2008, not very many people seriously thought he would be or even should be arrested. I think the patience of good people is getting severely tested in 2025 though, I think by 2028, or sooner, people will be demanding scalps.

Post reply on HN