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

591–600 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#591

Post by laidoffamazon »

jrflowers wrote: post #396

I like that many people here have speculated that Bezos simply wants to avoid the ire of a possible Trump administration. This is very charitable, so much so that it ignores another reasonable guess a person could make based off of the same objective information that we all have — that this action is an endorsement, and the person that chose to endorse a candidate did so because he wants them to win. On one hand you…

I think the act of spiking the endorsement sends a stronger signal than the lack of endorsement. He could always make his own endorsement, but he didn't.

I don't know what's in his head. I just know that Trump sources are saying it's because of fear of reprisal [0]

[0]: https://x.com/gabrielsherman/status/1849960615197966648

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#592

Post by selimthegrim »

swatcoder wrote: post #335
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?

The idea is that these people spend their days in the weeds, working over stories and leads, getting to know people personally, absorbing information and insight that doesn't make it to print, seeing the connections and threads between all the things they publish, and are literally professional news people the way many of us here are professional technology people who might have some insight on technology topics. You…

This reminds me of when The New Republic had a bunch of staff quit en masse because the new imported editor was blatantly bullshitting them. He didn’t realize that he was talking to a bunch of professional journalists who knew exactly what being bullshit was like.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#593

Post by batch12 »

krapp wrote: post #479
batch12 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forbidden by whom? Forbidden by its owner vs forbidden by an external party like the government are two different situations.

I'm not aware that the government has forbidden any news outlet from endorsing Kamala Harris. It would be weird if they did.

I'm not aware of any either, just trying to understand the point you're making with your comment.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#594

Post by selimthegrim »

screye wrote: post #467

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/

1988 isn’t 50 years

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#595

Post by Spivak »

nomdep wrote: post #480
SkipperCat wrote: post #373

Democracy dies in darkness was a promise, not a warning.

I'm sick of this absurd FUD. You surely must realize that the claims that if Trump wins, democracy is going to end are just fearmongering, don't you?

Do I need to trot out the list of dictators who were democratically elected?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/us/politics/trump-officia...

These aren't nobodies, they aren't the only ones close to him saying this, and that's before his public statements. The bulk of Project 2025 is a how-to guide for rooting out administrative disloyalty. I don't think he'll be successful but I don't want to deal with the shit he's going to cause in the attempt.

It would be really really easy to make everyone feel better by nominating literally anyone else, preferably a Moderate Republican. I'll personally go door to door campaigning for them if it means not Trump.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#596

Post by laidoffamazon »

nomdep wrote: post #480
SkipperCat wrote: post #373

Democracy dies in darkness was a promise, not a warning.

I'm sick of this absurd FUD. You surely must realize that the claims that if Trump wins, democracy is going to end are just fearmongering, don't you?

He literally tried an autogolpe. I saw it, live, on TV with my own eyes and ears. He's currently promising to pardon the people that participated in it that have been prosecuted while pardoning himself due to his own immune status.

That's how a Banana Republic functions.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#597

Post by II2II »

alwayslikethis wrote: post #394
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.

The problem for BBC is that it's government-funded. It can't really take a stance without potentially upsetting the next government.

A lot of that depends upon the government in question. Some want publicly funded news organizations at arms length. Others want to dismantle them. Some want at least the image of impartiality (and will take some criticism). Others want them to be a mouthpiece. It's not terribly different from the private sector. I would go as far as saying it is no different from the private sector given the consolidation of news organizations over the past few decades.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#598

Post by johnnyanmac »

kcplate wrote: post #359
johnnyanmac wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We didn't give freedom of the press to protect businesses from government scrutiny. We did it to keep free information flowing. There's definitely some very hard and frank questions we need to ask if free information decides to focus on profits over communication.

The press is free to report on whatever they want. That freedom however is not a mandate that they must report on everything. Newspapers and other media companies have ALWAYS focused on profit. Nothing new there. Plus in this day and age there is literally no restriction on the flow of public accessible information at least in the US. Even when it was tried recently (twitter, FB, YouTube) during the pandemic the publ…

> Nothing new there.

like most of the 21st century: Nothing new, just getting more efficient and less subtle with it. 20th century corruption would have had this announced way back in 2023 to make the timing not so obvious at the bare minimium instead of having editorial waste its time on a story that was pulled last minute.

>the public backlash to that attempts at information control was so great that it might literally sway this election.

but nothing much changed. I don't know if public outcry vs output was always this poor, but that certainly seems to have changed over the decades. Too many people uncomfortable enough to complain but not enough to get up and get out.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#599

Post by eapressoandcats »

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?

That’s a bit beside the point in this case. Newspapers are supposed to have a first amendment right to say whatever they want and the key concern is that Bezos spiked the editorial to curry favor with Trump.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#600

Post by jfoster »

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 would extend that to all businesses. For the sake of the business & their customers it's usually best to keep politics out of it.
Post reply on HN