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

431–440 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#431

Post by calf »

dotnet00 wrote: post #357
mandevil wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

It's amazing how motivated reasoning and a poltics poisoned mind can be used to make obvious points out to be unreasonable. Institutional neutrality is simple, the organization does what is ncessary to operate, but doesn't prescribe anything unnecessarily over that. It does not mean that professors are not allowed to talk about disagreeable things that are required for teaching the subject. If anything, it makes it e…

What backwater high school did you go to that had you study creationism of all religions? We never covered propaganda in science, in Canada.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#433

Post by adriand »

skellington wrote: post #389
vr46 wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[flagged]

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#434

Post by throwaway5752 »

I'm going to rewrite something verbatim the other candidate posted on his social media network:

CEASE & DESIST: I, together with many Attorneys and Legal Scholars, am watching the Sanctity of the 2024 Presidential Election very closely because I know, better than most, the rampant Cheating and Skullduggery that has taken place by the Democrats in the 2020 Presidential Election. It was a Disgrace to our Nation! Therefore, the 2024 Election, where Votes have just started being cast, will be under the closest professional scrutiny and, WHEN I WIN, those people that CHEATED will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the Law, which will include long term prison sentences so that this Depravity of Justice does not happen again. We cannot let our Country further devolve into a Third World Nation, AND WE WON’T! Please beware that this legal exposure extends to Lawyers, Political Operatives, Donors, Illegal Voters, & Corrupt Election Officials. Those involved in unscrupulous behavior will be sought out, caught, and prosecuted at levels, unfortunately, never seen before in our Country.

It is right here https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/1133692554916...

He's right there saying it. We're in a slow motion train wreck. Bezos is chickening out because of it.

You really might see the end of democracy in America within weeks. Trump is telling you he's going to end it. One of the richest men in the world is listening to him.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#435

Post by rightbyte »

makeitdouble wrote: post #382
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.

What do you mean by 'unbalanced'? "Unstable" or "biased"?

The US seems really unstable right now. It is like a ever growing political cacophony. And blaming the "other side" for a mutual problem seems silly for an external observer.

The bad faith tone is making the caricatures real by moving people further from each other and entrenching distinctive extremes as ingroup markers.

E.g. I feel that during the pandemic supporters of the former president believed the caricatures of his policy on the matter, making it a thing.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#436

Post by mandevil »

dotnet00 wrote: post #357
mandevil wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

It's amazing how motivated reasoning and a poltics poisoned mind can be used to make obvious points out to be unreasonable. Institutional neutrality is simple, the organization does what is ncessary to operate, but doesn't prescribe anything unnecessarily over that. It does not mean that professors are not allowed to talk about disagreeable things that are required for teaching the subject. If anything, it makes it e…

You are ignoring my point.

I was a volunteer at a US science museum that received some taxpayer funding back in the mid-aughts when "Scientific Creationism" was still a thing. Our museum had (and still has) an institutional commitment to the scientific consensus on the age of the universe and earth. If we had caught a volunteer providing visitors with creationism they would have been asked to hand in their badge and not work any more shifts, because that was our institutional position and everyone had to respect that.

Trying to throw that away because of Israel-Palestine is much more threatening to the value of truth than it helps it.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#437

Post by bitshiftfaced »

drewbug01 wrote: post #24
bitshiftfaced wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

“Had”, not “has”, a long history of not endorsing candidates. They’ve been endorsing since the 80s. The proper framing is “the owners stepped in to change the policy, to mirror the same policies they had before the 80s”. Whether that’s right or wrong to do is a separate question. But framing this as though it has been editors going rogue or something is just not what’s happening at all.

> But framing this as though it has been editors going rogue or something is just not what’s happening at all.

Of which I didn't do. Granted, 40 years is a long time. But given that the company has had the policy of not endorsing for over two-thirds of its existence, I believe the "undo" framing is accurate.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#438

Post by _yb2s »

mmooss wrote: post #360
vagab0nd wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have that kind of money, why wouldn't you do that?

Because you believe in something more than personal gain. The US and other countries were built by elites who believed in more; it's the current generation that are failing.

Or at least forming your own vision of what you want the world to be like based on your own values, and seeing the world move that way as "personal gain."

I think people nowadays choose some generic and pointlessly bland vision of personal success instead of having their own vision based on their own values out of narcissism. The more generic, the more people will agree that you are successful.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#439

Post by smsm42 »

nickff wrote: post #324
lapcat wrote: post #296

Newspapers publish opinions for the same reason that they publish comic strips: people want to read them. Readers seek them out. Newspapers are a business and have to give their customers what they want. The problematic aspect here is that the current business owner, Jeff Bezos, has a conflict of interest. Bezos is making a bad business decision for The Washington Post, sacrificing it and losing readers for the sake…

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 would take way more for WaPo to not be in a position where mentioning it in one phrase with "impartiality" wouldn't sound like an absurdist joke. They can walk this road, but so far there's absolutely no indication they want to, and Bezos twisting their arms can't be taken as such evidence.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#440

Post by ihsw »

calf wrote: post #388
mandevil wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

[dead]
Post reply on HN