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

381–390 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#381

Post by janalsncm »

energy123 wrote: post #249
jeffbee wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

On a serious note, this is an example of what historian Timothy Snyder refers to as "obeying in advance", where people predict what a repressive government will want and then obey before they're in power just to be safe. This creates a positive feedback loop that leads to them seizing power.

I read that book but didn’t connect the dots here. That is terrifying.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#382

Post by makeitdouble »

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.

Being neutral in an unbalanced situation means you are purposefully ignoring things that should be said and not putting on the table things that should be there. Not publishing relevant opinions pieces is part of that.

To get some distance, imagine being neutral to every candidates during Russia's last elections, and refusing to publish well researched and argumented opinions people have about the leading candidate.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#383

Post by thrownv7032g »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #361
noncoml wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What the BBC does really well is trash itself in reporting after scandals from within break

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#384

Post by noncoml »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #361
noncoml wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"somewhat impartial"

I can not really think of any truly impartial news source. Can you? At least no in the countries I have lived in

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#385

Post by zeroonetwothree »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #272
daft_pink wrote: post #34

Is anyone really changing their mind based on some newspaper endorsement? I’m pretty sure everyone knows who they’re gonna vote for at this point.

I'm sure you're mostly right, but there are no doubt a few still on the fence, which can only either be people who have not been exposed to the truth about Trump (e.g. people who only watch Trump sane-washed sources like Fox), or republicans who are well aware of the danger he poses, but are having a hard time accepting that the responsible thing to do is vote against him. For the few that are still on the fence, the…

I haven’t decided myself. My vote doesn’t especially matter because of the state I live in but I do like to vote as an experience.

It’s not that I particularly like Trump as an individual (quite the opposite), but Harris is just very unappealing to me from a policy standpoint.

I do think that the Hitler comparison undermines any point you are trying to make so maybe tone it down a bit.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#386

Post by kcplate »

Hasu wrote: post #333
kcplate wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It influences no one, but it sends a pretty loud message to the Democratic party that (now two, LATimes did same thing) normally reliable media orgs have lost confidence in the democrat party’s ability to bring forth a competitive candidate against Donald Trump.

> it sends a pretty loud message to the Democratic party that normally reliable media orgs have lost confidence in the democrat party’s ability to bring forth a competitive candidate against Donald Trump. It's not two media organizations. Both wrote endorsements of Harris. Two self-interested billionaires decided that they and their personal fortunes would be better off if those endorsements were not published. The m…

> suck up to the rich guys if you want power

You don’t think this is a recent lesson? Pretty sure every politician already realized this. Since literally forever. Hell, I worked for a company whose wealthy owner had a steady stream of politicians flowing in and out of our offices promising the world for a handout, support, and help. Seemed like every week there was a tour or two for somebody. I have met literally 3 governors, several senators, US reps, state reps, county commissioners, multiple presidential candidates, sheriffs, mayors, wannabes for all and scores of political support staff who excitedly walked in my office while trying to schmooze the old man.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#387

Post by standardUser »

nickff wrote: post #374
standardUser wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump has repeatedly threatened media companies he thinks have wronged him with specific actions he's said he will take as president. Bezos has a whole business empire to worry about that goes way beyond WaPo. He doesn't need a petty president trying to wreck his bottom line for 4 years. And with a business that big, Trump has a lot of ways he could cause trouble.

This is definitely a potential motive, but there are many of those, and we have no reason to believe this is actually what led to Bezos’ decision.

Yes we have a reason. Trump threatens media companies and individuals he believes have wronged him - loudly and often. If someone came to you and said they aren't going to a party, and you knew someone at that party had specifically threatened to beat them if they attend the party, do you have "no reason" to believe that the threat of a beating is a likely cause of the action (or in these cases, inaction). Especially if that person has a long history of attending that specific party?

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#388

Post by calf »

mandevil wrote: post #299
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.

"What is truth?" asked the powerful Roman governor of Judea, of a man accused of blasphemy two millennia ago, and we still don't know. What is "neutrality" for a university? Is creationism "neutral"? It was a huge political deal in the US for decades (though it seems to have died down recently), but in the 1980's, 1990's, and into the 2000's there were plenty of people who wanted creationism taught in science classes…

Neutrality is a problematic ideology because it serves the powerful and the status quo, the first question to ask back is are they (an authority, an institution) really neutral/impartial?

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#389

Post by skellington »

vr46 wrote: post #313
Dalewyn wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

lol....a key tenet of journalism is objective reporting:

Objective Reporting: Journalism aims to report events truthfully, objectively, and fairly, without bias. This involves verifying facts, seeking multiple perspectives, and presenting information clearly.

Activist-journalism is an oxymoron. There are very few journalists anymore.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#390

Post by wsintra2022 »

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.

The BBC recently wrote a piece on the executives at Harod’s who kept Mo’s pervert behaviour secret. Don’t think they done yet that for the many perverts they have kept secrets for.
Post reply on HN