Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#301

Post by KaiserPro »

TMWNN wrote: post #30
kccoder wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't met a single person on the left with the mindset you described. I'm not saying they don't exist, I just can't imagine it represents more than a fraction of a percent of the left. It seems like more on the left believe that if Trump is elected, we are unlikely to see another fair election.

>It seems like more on the left believe that if Trump is elected, we are unlikely to see another fair election. Don't listen to what they say, Look at what they do. Breaking Points back in July, while discussing the Trump-Biden debate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV8ULfwTneE > (which I highly recommend watching; it's the single best sum-up), pointed out two things for those who claim (to believe) the above: * If T…

mate, you're assuming that the democrats are well enough organised to actually think like that, let alone execute a plan so complicated.

They clearly are a party divided by old timers, radicals and the rest. Biden has a retinue of close advisers who loose power when he looses office (either by mental ability or loosing) They have the influence to damage anyone taking a swipe at the "king". Obvious disloyalty is toxic in politics. (even more so in trump circles. even though hes not very loyal to you)

Trying to pry a leader out of their seat, when there are no clear charismatic upstarts is fucking hard, even more so when your party is in paralysis because they are loosing in the polls.

THe democrats bungled it. and you have Harris.

Youre citing sources saying that the democrats will plan x,y & z, and they are keeping it a secret.

They can't keep a secret. Look how much warning we had about Biden being yeeted. _months_ of low lying noises and grumbles.

Where as you look at trump and he says: "I'm going to deport milions"

and

> “We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they’re the big — and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

There isn't really an equivalent from the democrats, because they are disorganised and frankly useless.

Trump has a chance to do this because he's surrounded by pricks who'll let that happen.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#302

Post by vr46 »

dotnet00 wrote: post #257

I like this trend of taking neutral positions that seems to be picking up again, although the timing for this doesn't look good. Just as how universities are starting to adopt neutrality, so should news outlets.

There is no neutrality in the face of evil.

Journalism and journalists are not supposed to be neutral, but impartial.

Ethics are pretty universal.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#303

Post by amadeuspagel »

Molitor5901 wrote: post #12
coding123 wrote: post #6

There is definitely a quiet support among the faang owners for Trump.

I think they, like even some on the left, have reasoned that Trump will only be there for four years. That's it. He's gone, or in jail. That's four years they know who their opponent will be and the Democratic Party can prepare. Thinking a long game, it is possible the left has given up and said fine, let's get it over with.

Isn't it much better from a left-wing perspective to have Trump win the primary and lose the general until he dies? Because if he loses this time, that seems likely to happen.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#304

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

slater wrote: post #49
ErikAugust wrote: post #32

Does Bezos have uber-intel, and knows Trump is going to win?

lol... maybe he does? Number of trump signs vs. harris signs bought on Amazon? (yes i know Jeff doesn't work there, but y'know...)

Any sign of strength than can be bought (i.e. fake strength), probably already has been bought by Musk and/or others trying for influence the election. They say the sudden betting market swing for Trump from a few weeks ago comes from overseas money (4 people, maybe all the same), but I'd not be surprised if Musk were behind it given that he's out there trying to buy people's votes.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#305

Post by johnnyanmac »

kcplate wrote: post #261
bogantech wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But that's not what happened here. The editors did their normal endorsement process, but the owner of the paper stepped in and personally overrode their process for this one particular endorsement. He owns the paper, they just work there.

Honestly it’s surprising to me that people really think that the news side of a media company operates with complete autonomy from the business side. They might claim it exists but that’s a fallacy. I worked at a major daily newspaper 30 years ago and I personally know of two cases in my short tenure there where news stories were killed because they didn’t want to piss off important advertisers. I am also aware of a…

We didn't give freedom of the press to protect businesses from government scrutiny. We did it to keep free information flowing.

There's definitely some very hard and frank questions we need to ask if free information decides to focus on profits over communication.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#306

Post by janalsncm »

Molitor5901 wrote: post #11

To play Devils Advocate for a moment: Why do we need, or even want, a newspaper to endorse a President? How does it not undermine a paper's journalistic ethics to be neutral and fair?

I guess we need to think about what it means to be “neutral”. If half of Americans believe the earth is flat, is the neutral stance to say it’s unclear? Or is it to figure out what the truth is? In my mind there’s a difference between journalists and pollsters.

Of course with endorsements you can technically bring up the is/aught dichotomy. The facts may be what they are but that doesn’t necessitate any particular action. While this is technically true, I never see anyone complaining about the ethics of testing products and endorsing good ones. Wirecutter is basically doing the same thing with headphones and running shoes. Yet I only ever see pushback on political endorsements.

In short, umpires are neutral and fair but the fact that some teams win a lot more than others doesn’t mean they’re not doing their job.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#307

Post by johnnyanmac »

transcriptase wrote: post #211
coldpie wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually agree with you, newspapers really shouldn't be doing this. Our major local paper in the Twin Cities basically torched its reputation by endorsing wildly unqualified candidates for city offices (like, one guy they endorsed for Minneapolis city council didn't even live in Minneapolis). They recently decided to stop doing endorsements at all, which I think is the right decision. But that's not what happened h…

[flagged]

you see how incedisive so many people are and sadly realize that yes: an endorsement from a big newspaper can mean a lot.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#308

Post by arp242 »

jeffbee wrote: post #222
janalsncm wrote: post #144

> CNBC has requested comment from Amazon. According to the article, Jeff Bezos is presumably afraid that Trump would continue to punish Amazon. If that is the case, this seems like an entirely futile exercise. Not that corporate PR responses are ever particularly illuminating. I read an article regarding information conveyed per syllable. English was near the top. Languages with less information per syllable like Spa…

Imagine taking as many steroids as Jeff Bezos has taken, only to end up being afraid of an obese elderly man who cheats at golf. What was the point of all that flexing?

Well, he does have a reasonable chance to be elected to presidency, so there's that.

Morality and general spinelessness aside, it's clearly the sensible thing to do. You might anger a few sensible people but that will pass. Trump is not exactly known to be forgiving. Remember when he refused emergency aid to states that weren't supportive enough of him? That's the sort of decrepit small-minded snowflake we're talking about.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#309

Post by johnnyanmac »

anyonecancode wrote: post #233
Molitor5901 wrote: post #11

To play Devils Advocate for a moment: Why do we need, or even want, a newspaper to endorse a President? How does it not undermine a paper's journalistic ethics to be neutral and fair?

I think if Bezos had announced this change in policy in, say, Feb 2021, it would have landed differently.

100%. Or even January 2024. Shutting down the operation last minute is simply suspect in so many areas.
Post reply on HN