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

541–550 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#541

Post by janalsncm »

christophilus wrote: post #409
janalsncm wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess we need to think about what it means to be “neutral”. If half of Americans believe the earth is flat, is the neutral stance to say it’s unclear? Or is it to figure out what the truth is? In my mind there’s a difference between journalists and pollsters. Of course with endorsements you can technically bring up the is/aught dichotomy. The facts may be what they are but that doesn’t necessitate any particular ac…

That’s because if you praise a terrible toaster, life for most Americans is unaffected. If you endorse a political candidate, and nudge the election in one direction or other, roughly 50% of Americans will see that move as hostile.

The principle is the same though, whether you’re recommending candidates or toasters. Just because one has more impact than the other, doesn’t make it less ethical to investigate and recommend.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#542

Post by akira2501 »

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…

> Newspapers are a business and have to give their customers what they want.

Isn't that supposed to be news and not worthless institutional opinions on the presidential office?

> It's unlikely that an independent owner with no conflict of interest would make the same decision.

An unconflicted owner wouldn't endorse either candidate. In general, hopefully, but in this election, particularly.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#543

Post by JKCalhoun »

laidoffamazon wrote: post #529
okr wrote: post #525

I think the endorsement was just bad journalism or bad writing and Bezos just did not want to risk it. If such an endorsement would come out in such a divided climate, then i would want it to be excellent. Maybe it was just partisan. Who knows.

They endorsed in 2020 and 2016 and 2012 and 2008 and if they were so serious about adopting national neutrality they should have announced this in January instead of spiking an existing endorsement

Honestly too, this seems like the wrong point in history to sit out an election.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#544

Post by akira2501 »

zmmmmm wrote: post #496
smsm42 wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that editorial team has some kind of expertise, unavailable to general population, that allows them ecxlusive ability to properly understand current events, seems to have no factual support at all. They are professionals in giving their opinions, it doesn't make their opinions be better that anybody else's. Experience suggests they are usually worse.

> The idea that editorial team has some kind of expertise, unavailable to general population That doesn't make sense to me - they literally spend all day every day absorbing, summarising and writing about context as their full time job. They are trained formally at assessing, evaluating and questioning facts. You can criticise the end result, but I can't see how it's reasonable to say they aren't far better positione…

> all day every day absorbing, summarising and writing about context as their full time job.

Something the people they are writing to and ostensibly on behalf of do not get to enjoy. Perhaps people with grounded perspectives would be more worthwhile. Guest opinions are logical, an actual editorial opinion department? That's just an early retirement plan for writers who don't have what it takes to produce news anymore.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#545

Post by geoelectric »

laidoffamazon wrote: post #537
keeda wrote: post #531

Here’s an alternative take. Note, I’m absolutely not a Bezos fan. Maybe he is just chickening out against Trump and/or fighting against the proposed billionaire tax (which IMO will never happen.) But consider that 1) even with all the damage Trump could do, Bezos will still be richer than god, 2) Bezos did not instruct the Washington Post to endorse Trump, and 3) he doesn’t seem to have asked them to keep things quie…

I don't think he has to do 4D chess to signal support against Trump. He could always just use his giant megaphone to decry Trump as a wannabe dictator that improperly used his own power when he was President to punish his political enemies - something Trump does not shy away from publicly admitting.

Yeah, but I wondered about the same thing as GP.

It’s one thing to be another voice in the crowd of people all saying the same thing (even a very deep pocketed voice) and another entirely to be the object example everybody discusses by letting it be believed that with all your billions, you’re scared too. People are more affected by things they decide for themselves than things you tell them, hence show don’t tell.

Were that to be the case, I wouldn’t consider it 4D chess. It seems like a straightforward strategy to me.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#546

Post by fenomas »

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…

> not endorsing candidates might be good for the Washington Post's business, by improving its perceived impartiality

You're at the wrong meta level - if the paper's owner is making the editorial decisions, there's no impartiality to perceive in the first place.

I mean, if the question at hand was "should the editors endorse someone?" then what you're saying could stand. But that's out the window if they're being overruled by somebody without even a presumption of impartiality.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#547

Post by [deleted] »

devindotcom wrote: post #534
rufus_foreman wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You want them to name... readers of newspapers? Editorials, by an outlet's editorial board or otherwise, have consistently been among the most popular content in news for over a century. That includes endorsements.

[deleted]

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#548

Post by rufus_foreman »

devindotcom wrote: post #534
rufus_foreman wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You want them to name... readers of newspapers? Editorials, by an outlet's editorial board or otherwise, have consistently been among the most popular content in news for over a century. That includes endorsements.

>> You want them to name... readers of newspapers?

Obviously not.

I want them to name readers who seek out newspaper opinions.

One name to start with.

Do you seek out newspaper opinions?

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#549

Post by okr »

laidoffamazon wrote: post #529
okr wrote: post #525

I think the endorsement was just bad journalism or bad writing and Bezos just did not want to risk it. If such an endorsement would come out in such a divided climate, then i would want it to be excellent. Maybe it was just partisan. Who knows.

They endorsed in 2020 and 2016 and 2012 and 2008 and if they were so serious about adopting national neutrality they should have announced this in January instead of spiking an existing endorsement

But this is past. Each time had its own challenges. For example, i learned so much about how media and partisanship works in the past years. It is so obvious and visible to me now. Maybe others feel the same and thats why an endorsement would feel disingenuous. It has to be reasonable and believable. But maybe it was not.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#550

Post by thimabi »

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.

Regardless of the motive, I do not view favorably his interference in the newspaper. If anything, he should have left editorial decisions to the staff.
Post reply on HN