601–610 of 1001 posts
The first thing he said was “The paper’s duty will remain to its readers and not to the private interests of its owners.”
We, the readers, should require an apology from Bezos for breaking his promise to keep this separate from his other concerns.
Until that happens, one must assume that WaPo is permanently compromised in the favor of Bezos’s interests.
It’s not about Kamala, it’s about literally everything.
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. If this is all we expect of journalism in a Democracy, then the current state of the "business" of "news" in the US should be satisfactory to all.
Straw man. I didn't say that.
It's not a maximum, but it is a minimum. Newspapers require money to operate, and they're competing for attention in a capitalist economy. No attention. no money, no newspaper. In a democracy, you can't force-feed newspapers to the population. They voluntarily choose to read or not read.
The "good news" is that many people in a democracy are interested in the hard truth. Nonetheless, it helps to package that along with softer marketing and entertainment.
So we have reached the intimidation phase of this election, where businesses owners fear repercussions from Trump (or standing up against him) and his entourage for not supporting him. Reminds me of a certain time in history.
It's the equivalent of playing chicken with a train because you're bored.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not aware of any either, just trying to understand the point you're making with your comment.
I was referring to the context of the comment to which I was replying, and asking a rhetorical question regarding the relationship between the free speech rights of the press and the implication that the press should be prevented from expressing editorial opinions.
Edit: lots of changes to try and clarify my point
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/
The endorsement lets them write why they support the candidate. Laying out the reasons is what could be convincing, and is what's also being blocked here.
Honestly, I look at the billions of dollars being poured into political ads, and I can't help but think that it's all a tremendous waste because it's hard to imagine that there's anybody left who didn't already form a strong opinion about Trump at some point over the past ten years.
[1] Like even assuming that prospective Trump voters don't read this newspaper, an especially novel or powerful argument could get picked up and spread by other outlets that do reach prospective Trump voters.
[flagged]
> Couldn't a simple answer here be that he felt Kamala is unqualified and terrible and as a newspaper with a lot of readership and influence, he decided against endorsing her? Sure, but why should the personal opinion of the owner of the newspaper prevail over the opinion of the editorial staff?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really this is a lesson in why the corporate news model is doomed to fail. Upping my contributions to serious investigative journalist organizations like ProPublica
I disagree. This is the exception rather than the rule. The more corporate, the more likely to give the people what they want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Globe and Mail is a Canadian paper. Here is its history of endorsements since 1984: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/federal-electi... There is an entire Wikipedia page devoted only to endorsements in the 2024 United Kingdom general election: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_in_the_2024_Uni...
Yeah, it does seem big in anglo-saxon countries. (I already posted that Wikipedia page, btw.)
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.