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

361–370 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#361

Post by zeroonetwothree »

noncoml wrote: post #353
nickff wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be implying that he made a decision based on other business interests, against those of the Post, but there is no support for that in the article. Do you have a source which describes this motive? It seems like not endorsing candidates might be good for the Washington Post's business, by improving its perceived impartiality. In addition to this, the WaPo seems to have spent much of its history not endorsi…

It takes a lot time to build the reputation of impartiality. To be honest only BBC comes into mind when I think about a somewhat impartial medium. What I see is a traditionally Democartic leaning newspaper, choosing "impartiality" as an excuse, because they cannot come out and support Republicans. And of course I believe that this is the choice of the owner.

Not saying the BBC is Fox News or CNN but I wouldn’t really call it impartial.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#362

Post by trealira »

greenthrow wrote: post #143
73kl4453dz wrote: post #44

What's even the point of being a billionaire if you're still scared of Trump?

Why is everyone in this thread pushing the idea that Bezos is scared of Trump? It seems more plausible to me he is scared of the DoJ breaking up Amazon under Harris.

Yes, and it seems to me equally likely that he likes Trump but is too cowardly to say so. I don't know why others are so certain he's scared of Trump, unless there's a piece of information I'm missing.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#363

Post by nickff »

lapcat wrote: post #337
nickff wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be implying that he made a decision based on other business interests, against those of the Post, but there is no support for that in the article. Do you have a source which describes this motive? It seems like not endorsing candidates might be good for the Washington Post's business, by improving its perceived impartiality. In addition to this, the WaPo seems to have spent much of its history not endorsi…

> there is no support for that in the article. Untrue. At the top, "KEY POINTS: In a 2019 lawsuit, Amazon claimed it lost a $10 billion Pentagon cloud computing contract to Microsoft because Trump used “improper pressure ... to harm his perceived political enemy” Bezos."

[flagged]

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#364

Post by johnnyanmac »

moduspol wrote: post #73
TylerE wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All signs point to this being an extraordinarily tight election. 5 or 10k votes in the right state could swing the whole thing.

I'd be incredibly surprised if there are even 100 people who: - Don't know who The Washington Post editorial board would endorse - Would change who they are voting for based on this lack of endorsement But I could be wrong.

All elections ultiamtely come down to undecided swing voters. It's silly every-time, but you need to vastly lower your expectations for that kind of crowd. Yes, a cheesy dance number endorsing a candidate can be all that is needed to swing an entire election.

This is an issue with first past the post, but that's a much larger thing to tackle.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#365

Post by dotnet00 »

vr46 wrote: post #302
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.

"There is no neutrality in the face of evil"

This is said by both sides, it is equally stupid every time.

If ethics are pretty universal, how is it that one party wants no abortions at all and thinks any abortion that isn't absolutely medically necessary is evil and the other party wants abortions right up until viable birth and thinks that anything less than that is evil?

Especially when considering that most of the world is somewhere in between, where abortions are legal for a few weeks and then illegal unless absolutely necessary.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#366

Post by willturman »

soerxpso wrote: post #298
georgeecollins wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If they have nothing to say, maybe nobody needs to hear it.

Maybe? It’s almost a certainty that the news media outlets are outright bullshit and/or attention sucking propaganda.

https://fs.blog/stop-reading-news/

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#368

Post by tredfjgkkl543 »

73kl4453dz wrote: post #44

What's even the point of being a billionaire if you're still scared of Trump?

Trump may be handed unprecedented [0] power, is quite openly and plainly motivated by retribution, has repeatedly threatened to use the power of the military and the state against his political enemies, and at least once has used his own media platform to call for the termination of the US constitution.

(Those are facts. Not political claims.)

Putting aside any broader assessments of his character, I think it is rational to be afraid of the consequences of being on the wrong side of such a person.

What is depressing is the number of people in positions of influence who do not feel like modelling the virtuous position of having fear of the consequences of doing what they believe to be the right thing but doing it anyway.

[0] I realise that in principle there is a precedent for him having this power because he had it before. But what any presidential candidate in 2024 now has is the opportunity to run an executive with the clear legal opinion that they are permanently immune from prosecution for most of their actions, and an implicit handbook on how to bury criminal acts in official communications that are covered by absolute immunity. This extended power has no precedent.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#369

Post by elihu »

htk wrote: post #196

[flagged]

If this was a long-standing policy, or one at least announced well in advance of the election it wouldn't get much attention. That it's coming right before the election for transparently selfish reasons on the part of the paper's owner is not great.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#370

Post by nickff »

dhruvrajvanshi wrote: post #352
nickff wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be implying that he made a decision based on other business interests, against those of the Post, but there is no support for that in the article. Do you have a source which describes this motive? It seems like not endorsing candidates might be good for the Washington Post's business, by improving its perceived impartiality. In addition to this, the WaPo seems to have spent much of its history not endorsi…

From the article > In a 2019 lawsuit, Amazon claimed it had lost a $10 billion cloud computing contract with the Pentagon to Microsoft because Trump had used “improper pressure ... to harm his perceived political enemy” Bezos. The implication being that endorsing Harris might cause Amazon to lose out on government contracts in case Trump wins the presidency.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN