471–480 of 1001 posts
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.
You are either with us, or against us.
The Venn diagram of those who'd be influenced by a WaPo endorsement and committed Kamala Harris voters is a perfect intersection. For 50 years, WaPo has endorsed the democratic candidate [1] for president. No mystery here. It's a pointless endorsement. [1] https://noahveltman.com/endorsements/
I don't think there could be a more powerful endorsement of Trump so far, much more than if Bezos's paper actually printed an endorsement of him (which would have been laughed at): It's a signal of Trump as extraordinarily powerful, a stronger signal than probably anything else I've seen. That boosts his image among suppoters - remember power is what he sells - and will intimidate many, many more into complying. What…
I don't get why there is this assumption that Bezos would not just be supporting him. > have bent the knee This sounds a bit like "thedonald" nomenclature?
Where is that assumption in my GP comment? I said Bezos gave Trump the most powerful endorsement possible.
(The rest of the parent is a distraction.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 su…
Trying to keep a "the truth is in the middle" attitude is unethical.
I think the main issue becomes "bad faith", and we're back to the credibility issue. IMHO discourse should be fact based, and arguments should be researched. If you're calling your opponent names, show the receipt and not vague gesturing at what you think reality is.
Blaming the other side should be fine, as long as you can defend that position.
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…
> Newspapers are a business and have to give their customers what they want. This is true, but it shouldn't be viewed as unproblematic. Audience capture is a huge problem, and news organizations telling their audience what they here to the point that people get siloed in their own echo chambers is one of the main reasons why things are such a mess.
Here's a front page title from the Nov. 5 1888 edition of the New York World, run by Pulitzer (yes, that one):
A Plot - The Republicans' desperate scheme to secure electors
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is worse, a newspaper expressing an opinion or a newspaper being forbidden from expressing an opinion?
[flagged]
I can also distinguish between the value of the press and the value of a social media platform. Banning an account on Twitter doesn't carry the same social weight as banning journalists. To me, while both are legal and within the bounds of free speech, one is distinctly worse for society than the other.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment broke several of the site guidelines, by (1) posting in the flamewar style, including nationalistic flamebait, (2) being snarky, (3) doing political battle, and (4) commenting about getting downvoted. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules? We'd appreciate it because we're trying to avoid hell here.
This is a story that is going to lead to political passions. Don't want such stories? Just kill them. What kind of useful conversation do you think it will raise that will not ignite passions? Sometimes your guidelines are stupid.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is worse, a newspaper expressing an opinion or a newspaper being forbidden from expressing an opinion?
Forbidden by whom? Forbidden by its owner vs forbidden by an external party like the government are two different situations.
Democracy dies in darkness was a promise, not a warning.