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

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#511

Post by krapp »

generalizations wrote: post #498
krapp wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why do the editors get the newspaper platform to publish their opinions? Because they work for the newspaper and that's part of their job?

Then we're right back to the original question: > How does it not undermine a paper's journalistic ethics to be neutral and fair?

Opinions aren't meant to be neutral and fair, and it isn't a violation of journalistic ethics to publish them as such.

If they had tried to disguise opinions as journalism by introducing intentional bias and distortion into a story, then that would be a problem. But newspapers have published opinions for ages.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#512

Post by e40 »

thesuperbigfrog wrote: post #504

Just like their motto: "Democracy dies in darkness" Hopefully there are no dark times ahead.

Comparing the NYT and WaPo, seems to me the latter is more stridently alerting everyone to the dangers of a Trump presidency, this killed endorsement notwithstanding.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#513

Post by ein0p »

anyonecancode wrote: post #233
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?

I think if Bezos had announced this change in policy in, say, Feb 2021, it would have landed differently.

[flagged]

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#514

Post by noirbot »

carbatterylife wrote: post #331

[flagged]

Sure, but then Bezos should be writing something explaining it. Instead, he's silently just using his money to squash opinions he doesn't agree with. The is the exact sort of conspiracy that Trump likes to claim where Soros is the reason anyone doesn't endorse him, except now it literally happened and it's to help him, and he turned around and took a meeting with Blue Origin right after.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#515

Post by rightbyte »

mmooss wrote: post #473
rightbyte wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> assumption that Bezos would not just be supporting him. 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.)

It might be vague: "Bezos and the Washington Post [...] have bent the knee."

I read "bent the knee" as some sort of humiliation? I.e. Bezos don't really want to support Trump, but did anyway. Also on "thedonald" it was used as some sort of "humiliated loser folding in line" meme which is why I namedroped it.

English is not my native tongue so I get such nuances wrong sometimes.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#516

Post by noirbot »

wannacboatmovie wrote: post #500
noirbot wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really not sure of this. The argument I've mostly seen is that the endorsement was always mostly meaningless. If anything, this is a "coverup worse than the crime" situation. Killing the endorsement is much more notable than just letting it happen because it's what everyone was worried about when Bezos bought the paper - that he'd inject his own consideration into it, something he said he wouldn't do. If some bil…

> Killing the endorsement is much more notable than just letting it happen It's only notable because the staff was upset and leaked the backstory in retaliation. A newspaper is a business; it's not the town square. Imagine working for a company and going public every time your boss did something you disagreed with.

That's ignoring that he's running a business that's literally to report on things that important people like him do. An engineer at Amazon's job isn't to write about Amazon's business dealings to the public. The opinion and editorial board of a newspaper is literally there to write about what people like Bezos do.

It would have been notable even if they hadn't been public about it, just because the Post has endorsed every presidential race for decades. Eventually someone would have noticed and asked about it, and it just would have come out then.

You may as well just say he could silently kill the Kindle line and it wouldn't be a controversy/reported on. He can literally tell Amazon employees to stop making them, but it doesn't mean it's not weird and notable that he's doing it.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#518

Post by a123b456c »

dmix wrote: post #510
sgnelson wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While you may not take this as proof it affected this exact decision, it's hard to ignore it as a possible reason. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/10/amazon-wants-to-depose-presi...

Bezos wants to help elect someone who (his lawyers allege) killed a gov contract favourable to his own business? Or did I misread your comment.

I think the implicit argument is that he wants to avoid more canceled contracts, along with other forms of retribution like personal attacks he experienced a few years earlier.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#519

Post by vehicles2b »

generalizations wrote: post #498
krapp wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why do the editors get the newspaper platform to publish their opinions? Because they work for the newspaper and that's part of their job?

Then we're right back to the original question: > How does it not undermine a paper's journalistic ethics to be neutral and fair?

It's rather naive to think that newspapers ought to be neutral (or fair) in everything they produce. What kinds of neutral is desirable? There's neutral tone or neutral political bias -- there are many different ways for a newspaper to be or not be neutral.

Assuming neutrality isn't something that we should expect newspapers to value, then I think transparency is an good alternative. A presidential endorsement can be a good thing in that the newspaper staff are being openly transparent about their political bias.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#520

Post by theWreckluse »

dfxm12 wrote: post #422
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…

I just hope this will finally put to bed any ridiculous mentions of "liberal media bias", or that the tech sector has some liberal bias.

I think new-tech/mass-consumer-facing tech is always going to have a liberal bias - that just plays well with the dynamics of getting new users to use your procuct. It's only once a company/organization establishes itself as a mega Corp will we see the conservative idealogy exerting it's want to sustain/conserve the accumulated power.
Post reply on HN