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

271–280 of 305 posts

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

#271

Post by jquery »

dangus wrote: post #181
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’m not convinced the layperson is aware. I would bet that something like 80 or 90% of Washington Post subscribers don’t know who owns the paper, and I would save you the same thing about the Wall Street Journal.

I didn't know who owned WaPo until Bezos started putting his thumb on the scale.

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

#272

Post by mmooss »

rtpg wrote: post #269
mmooss wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 det…

The Washington Post has its own ownership problems, as you probably know. The NY Times is an obvious option (that I assume you've considered). If you want a signal of trust, look at their opinion section which is spread across most of the spectrum, unlike WSJ and Wapo; they do have their own biases IME - anti-Trump, anti-progressive, pro-Israel.

The Financial Times is good but insanely expensive. The Economist has a clear bias they are open about and is excellent but not really journalism - they don't give both sides a voice, dig up facts; the provide (succinct, sophisticated, lively) analysis. The Guardian obviously has a leftward bias but seem intellectually honest to me.

The Associated Press and Reuters, but they output too much. Curated news feeds can be very good, especially at finding a range of sources.

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

#273

Post by mmooss »

jquery wrote: post #270
mmooss wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 patie…

> IMO, the rules haven't changed at all, shit has always been bad. Ask any Black American.

What, of the things I described, have Black Americans experienced more than others?

> even the most milquetoast centrists of 2020 are turning into people calling for actual consequences for the corruption going on in our government.

I see the opposite: Look at congressional and other Dem leaders - they talk about economics and healthcare despite everything else going on.

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

#274

Post by eviks »

clircle wrote: post #68

Do we really hold editorials to the same standard as the rest of the news? These are opinion pieces, you should expect bias, no?

You should respect bias in the news as well, so pick a different criterion. Also the substance of bias doesn't become irrelevant just because you expect bias.

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

#275

Post by slg »

bpt3 wrote: post #250
slg wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

From the Cambridge Dictionary[1]:

>war criminal

>noun

>someone who commits war crimes:

>- He was a Nazi war criminal.

"Commits" not "convicted". If I had to summarize my point it would be "you're objectively wrong".

[1] - https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/war-c...

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

#276

Post by jitumaat »

mmooss wrote: post #273
jquery wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 patie…

> IMO, the rules haven't changed at all, shit has always been bad. Ask any Black American. What, of the things I described, have Black Americans experienced more than others? > even the most milquetoast centrists of 2020 are turning into people calling for actual consequences for the corruption going on in our government. I see the opposite: Look at congressional and other Dem leaders - they talk about economics and…

>What, of the things I described, have Black Americans experienced more than others?

in a context where an essentially democratic, free society was desired by all, black people were systematically shut out from, (redlining, the gi bill, etc.). Like how you were supposed to trust that stop-and-frisk and the broken window policing policies were not thinly veiled attempts to over-police black neighborhoods because the paper you read or the politician you voted for told you so... but the people that were the victims knew otherwise.

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

#277

Post by NekkoDroid »

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, the most probable outcome is that future presidents will too.

I think you are forgetting a date that happened on the 6th day after the start of 2021. I would most certainly not call that pieceful in any way shape or form (and yes, I count that as part of leaving office, being the certification of the next president). By your logic this would mean that it is unlikely that he will peacefully leave office.

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

#278

Post by blitzar »

pydry wrote: post #153
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.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/28/jeff-bezo... He even wrote an editorial saying "the news media isnt trusted, we have to do better". Then he decided he didnt want to do better.

> Then he decided he didnt want to do better.

I am fairly certain he decided to and is executing "do better" - nevertheless the 1 or 2 people with net worths of 100's of billions have different opinions on what "better" looks like than the other 8 billion of us.

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

#279

Post by codingbot3000 »

michaelhoney wrote: post #253
rtpg wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We have a similar, Murdoch-owned newspaper, The Australian. The news is actually OK, but the editorials and the choice of front-page headlines are some of the most tendentious conservative bullshit you can imagine.

This seems to exist in almost every democratic country now, and it seems to work on quite a few voters.

I am always wondering about the hacks writing these pieces, in what place do you have to be mentally to be, essentially, a paid propagandist?

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

#280

Post by donohoe »

coliveira wrote: post #150
donohoe wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they do. Billions per year across a wide variety of organizations.

You just don't understand how money works. Foundations are as political as any other organization in the capitalist world.

No. I think you don’t understand. I talking to my own first-hand experience. In my area of work I’ve met these foundations, organizations, and various NGOs. I’ve seen how grant programs etc. operate. There are outliers but in the whole it works.
Post reply on HN