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

291–300 of 305 posts

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

#291

Post by strictnein »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #203
strictnein wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Okay, so "me being alive today is the best predictor of me being alive in 150 years".

Nope. Everyone who is alive 150 years ago is dead. So the best predictor of being dead 150 years from now is to be alive currently (or already dead).

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

#292

Post by slg »

bpt3 wrote: post #281
slg wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

And how exactly is it confirmed that someone commited them?

As someone once said "Because of thousands upon thousands of documented accounts from eyewitnesses and participants".

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

#293

Post by slg »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #285
slg wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people are of the opinion that the world is flat, I would say it's objectively round. That is the context in which I'm using that word. I'm not using it to describe 100% consensus, because there will always be someone who disagrees with something. News without opinion is objectively impossible because the act of reporting the news is inherently governed by an opinion on what is worthy to report. Pretending other…

Yeah, yeah, true objectivity is objectively impossible. We know. The thing is, this isn't binary. There's a sliding scale between "totally objective" and "totally biased". When you eliminate the (unattainable) standard of "total objectivity", then reporters and news organizations move more toward biased . And the difference matters. You used to be able to get news that at least tried to be unbiased, that wasn't openl…

>You used to be able to get news that at least tried to be unbiased, that wasn't openly pushing a narrative. That made it possible to form a more accurate (though not totally accurate) view of what was actually going on.

Part of the problem with this line of thought it that a lot of bias is not intentional. There was never a moment in history in which you could pick up a newspaper with nothing but completely unbiased facts inside. Even today, most news sources aren't intentionally misleading even if they might be biased. Recognizing these inherent and subtle biases are required in order to know "what was actually going on".

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

#294

Post by bpt3 »

slg wrote: post #292
bpt3 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And how exactly is it confirmed that someone commited them?

As someone once said "Because of thousands upon thousands of documented accounts from eyewitnesses and participants".

Which are verified to meet a specific standard through a conviction in this case, which is the exact opposite of the scenario that generated the quote above.

Is an accused murderer still considered a murderer if they are not convicted of the crime?

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

#295

Post by slg »

bpt3 wrote: post #294
slg wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone once said "Because of thousands upon thousands of documented accounts from eyewitnesses and participants".

Which are verified to meet a specific standard through a conviction in this case, which is the exact opposite of the scenario that generated the quote above. Is an accused murderer still considered a murderer if they are not convicted of the crime?

This idea that something can't be confirmed as true unless a court says it is bizarre and totally antithetical to the idea of journalism. Journalists are not court stenographers.

Sometimes it is entirely reasonable to call someone a murderer even if they lack a conviction. I have no problem saying John Wilkes Booth murdered Lincoln. I have no problem saying Hitler committed war crimes. These are simply facts of history and your policing of language is implicitly arguing against those facts. So I'm going to ask you directly and I won't reply if you don't directly answer this question, do you believe that Hitler committed war crimes?

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

#296

Post by WalterBright »

yubblegum wrote: post #287
WalterBright wrote: post #217

Every media company is subject to the bias of the person or entity that owns it.

Rather incredible that this needs to be pointed out, specially given the history of press ownership in this nation. Rosebud ! /g

Yeah, I'm bemused at all the "I'm shocked, shocked to hear that the owner influences the content!"

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

#297

Post by bigyabai »

mhb wrote: post #235
mossTechnician wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

News can take money while also having a reputation. You won't catch me dead cross-referencing AP with Fox editorials or tabloid slop from The Sun.

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

#298

Post by bpt3 »

slg wrote: post #295
bpt3 wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which are verified to meet a specific standard through a conviction in this case, which is the exact opposite of the scenario that generated the quote above. Is an accused murderer still considered a murderer if they are not convicted of the crime?

This idea that something can't be confirmed as true unless a court says it is bizarre and totally antithetical to the idea of journalism. Journalists are not court stenographers. Sometimes it is entirely reasonable to call someone a murderer even if they lack a conviction. I have no problem saying John Wilkes Booth murdered Lincoln. I have no problem saying Hitler committed war crimes. These are simply facts of histo…

The idea that a criminal conviction needs to occur for someone to be called a criminal in the media should not be remotely controversial. Journalists certainly can and do perform research that can lead to arrests and/or convictions, but are effectively a mouthpiece for the court stenographer once a trial is underway.

An unbiased reporter would (and nearly all journalist actually do) say something like "accused " at any point in a criminal proceeding prior to the jury handing down a guilty verdict.

The fact that you only seem to be able to generate examples of extremely high profile situations where the alleged perpetrator was killed while evading capture (by themselves or law enforcement) only strengthens my argument.

I already answered your direct question.

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

#299

Post by burkaman »

coliveira wrote: post #116
istjohn wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Donations from multiple foundations, most of which were created by people long dead, are hardly comparable to ownership by a wealthy, living business magnate.

While the original owners are dead, this doesn't mean the foundation can do whatever "good" you imagine. These foundations are vehicles to keep doing the political bidding of these families and they still operate according to the wishes of the original donors, which are all oriented towards major industries. Or do you really believe people give millions of dollars to whatever cause with zero strings attached?

Joan Kroc's donation had zero strings attached.

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

#300

Post by AnimalMuppet »

slg wrote: post #293
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, yeah, true objectivity is objectively impossible. We know. The thing is, this isn't binary. There's a sliding scale between "totally objective" and "totally biased". When you eliminate the (unattainable) standard of "total objectivity", then reporters and news organizations move more toward biased . And the difference matters. You used to be able to get news that at least tried to be unbiased, that wasn't openl…

>You used to be able to get news that at least tried to be unbiased, that wasn't openly pushing a narrative. That made it possible to form a more accurate (though not totally accurate) view of what was actually going on. Part of the problem with this line of thought it that a lot of bias is not intentional. There was never a moment in history in which you could pick up a newspaper with nothing but completely unbiased…

There was this thing called "yellow journalism". It was very much not trying to be unbiased.

Most US 20th century journalism tried to be better than that. And, by trying, they were better than yellow journalism. Yes, there was still bias. But the difference between, say, 20% bias and 80% bias made a real difference.

So maybe today we're at 40% bias instead of 80% bias. It's still worse than it was, and the difference still matters. (And, by the way, one of the ways it matters is in peoples' trust of the media. We don't need people who are obviously trying to manipulate us; we already have enough of those.)

Post reply on HN