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

311–320 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#311

Post by EasyMark »

nkrisc wrote: post #202
93po wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

maybe biased opinions should be entirely separate from journalistic enterprises if those journalists want a single shred of credibility. people are mad at trump supporters and anti covid and anti vax stuff, and while i agree that's all stupid, i don't blame them at all for falling for it because main stream corporate journalism has destroyed any and all trust with absolutely everyone. maybe if we weren't constantly b…

Pretending there exists “unbiased” journalism is silly. All journalism is biased to some degree. The worthwhile categorization is to what degree the bias exists.

And how well they use facts to back their bias(es)

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#312

Post by zmmmmm »

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?

Endorsements are published by the editorial section which is specifically separated from the rest of the newspaper so to not undermine the neutrality of the journalism in the other sections.

Opinion and analysis has always been part of news publications, and plays an accepted role in adding layers of interpretation onto the raw "facts" that is crucial in making those facts interpretable by readers who aren't expert in the subject matter.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#313

Post by vr46 »

Dalewyn wrote: post #190
maxerickson wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not automatically unethical for a journalist to advocate for something. I guess if they entirely stopped publishing self authored editorials it might be "neutral" to not publish a particular one. But that isn't what is happening.

A journalist's job is to journal something, nothing more and nothing less. If a purported journalist wants to influence or otherwise lead his audience somewhere, he is many things (commentator, advocate, activist, influencer, etc.) but he is not a journalist.

This is a completely wrong and perhaps deliberately misleading impression of journalism and journalists. Healthy journalism absolutely provides critical analysis.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#314

Post by dralley »

sleepybrett wrote: post #267
jmcclell wrote: post #62

It makes sense in so much as "it's a risk to our business to endorse Harris because of the risk of falling afoul of Trump's vindictive nature should he win." From a fiduciary standpoint, I agree with that assessment. From the standpoint of a citizen, I find the implication alarming. I do believe that this is the reasoning behind the decision, but it is certainly speculation on my part.

You are forgetting that the ftc is looking at amazon under biden, one would hope that harris will keep kahn in the post (because she's kicking asses that have been needed to be kicked for 30+ years). I think he's in a bad place. If he endorses trump he's endorsing a potential fascist dictator. If he endorses harris he's contributing to amazon's anti-trust peril.

A billionaire personally intervening in the endorsement of a major newspaper on the basis of profit motive seems like the sort of thing that would contribute to anti-trust peril.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#316

Post by Dalewyn »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #297
Dalewyn wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is regarding endorsements by the outlet as a whole. If someone wants to go out and publicly endorse a candidate on their own name, nobody's stopping them. What Bezos did is say, no, you cannot and will never again slap the Washington Post's name onto your personal endorsement. I think that's fair, he owns the brand, and I think it's also good for journalism overall because it's not a journalist's job to push opi…

Given general hypocrisy, I expect an R endorsement come 2028. When the "swamp" is cleared and Bezo's Ai can write his opinions ghosting as a "journalist" with a respected brand.

If Bezos goes back on his word and lets or orders the Washington Post endorse a candidate in future elections? Yeah, weapons free to torch his ass.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#317

Post by traitfield »

lerjan wrote: post #160
bamboozled wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this race is right, then whatever I thought about people was wrong. Then again, I always wonder what the hell actually went through peoples minds in Nazi Germany.

[flagged]

After more than 60 years the Reductio ad Hitlerium is finally losing its power, heartening to see.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#318

Post by t-writescode »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #262
oivey wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they want to appear neutral? All news reporting, no matter what, is inherently biased in some way. There isn’t some “ideal” where that isn’t the case. There can’t be some magical font of unbiased information because just selecting what stories to put on the front page introduces bias. News can’t be unbiased and being unbiased was never a goal. News is meant to inform, which includes facts as well as analysi…

That just isn't true. It is possible to be unbiased in journalism, and it was a major goal of journalists at various times in history. Obviously not all journalists at all times have striven towards this goal, but some have. Stop making excuses for blatant partisanship, instead hold them to a higher standard.

> "to be unbiased in journalism"

By no means. Word choice on its own __is__ a bias. Even if you reported straight facts, the word choice used presents a bias or not. Is it a military action or a terrorist attack? Is it a protest? An occupation? Are they Freedom Fighters?

Choosing __to__ or __not to__ use an organization's given name or a description of them, is having a bias.

Choosing to report on something at all is a presentation of bias.

There is bias in everything and to imagine there isn't is to be even more susceptible to it.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#320

Post by dotnet00 »

georgeecollins wrote: post #281
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.

Endorsements come opinions editors, a special part of the paper where the paper prints opinions, not news. I agree that it would be nice if news outlets tried to always be neutral, but a lot of TV news channels in the US would have almost nothing to say if you stopped their opinion reporting.

Opinion sections on websites and on TV/video should be segregated from the rest of the organization in some way. On paper having it as a section was fine because it used to be marked relatively clearly and there were serious logistical issues.

However, with video and websites, it is very easy to mix editor opinion with news. People tuning into a news channel mid-report don't necessarily know they're listening to just an opinion, and same goes for people reading the headline from an embed or URL without clicking through to the page.

Another thing I often notice is that opinion pieces get to play more loose with the facts. They can say completely unsubstantiated things or get actual facts wrong, but still say something as if it had the credibility of the organization. Yet if the backlash gets too strong they get to deflect by arguing that it was just an opinion and not meant to reflect on the organization.

The current state of opinion pieces is like running a blog about my research and getting important things wrong there, then expecting people to assume that my actual research publications are accurate.

Post reply on HN