Live data from Hacker News

Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

cnbc.com

661–670 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#661
post #422
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.

The media isn't even just liberal. It's off the charts liberal even among liberals. Among journalists, Democrats outnumber Republicans 10 to 1: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/dec/30/only-34-us-....

This is reflected in news coverage. Consider how they cover things like Voter ID or proving citizenship to vote, which 80% of people support: https://news.gallup.com/poll/652523/americans-endorse-early-...

Or consider how papers coverage policies like affirmative action that supermajorities of Americans oppose: https://www.forbes.com/sites/vinaybhaskara/2023/07/10/americ...

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#662

[flagged]

True neutrality is endorsing Harris. Because it's not like Trump is a real choice. He's objectively terrible.

Harris isn't terrible or unqualified. She has plenty of experience and unlike Trump cares and wants to learn the details of policy.

The two sides are not remotely similar. And yes Bezos decision to let himself be blackmailed is insane

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#663
post #324
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…

There is direct support in the article. Amazon lost a $10B contract because Trump doesn't like Bezos, which is because he owns the WP, a paper that is generally critical of Trump. By killing this endorsement, he's buying some goodwill from Trump, at the cost of alienating the bulk of WP's readers.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#664
post #408

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.

> To be honest only BBC comes into mind when I think about a somewhat impartial medium. The BBC is pro-UK government, who fund them. To me only Reuters (disclaimer: I once worked there) and AP come to mind when I think impartial news. What do others think? https://www.purevpn.com/blog/unbiased-news-sources/ The Guardian is a great source of news, and it has a curageous team of reporters, but even it has its biases. I…

[flagged]

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#665
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…

Calling it a "bad business decision" just reveals your political preference. People who get their opinions from journalists is a constantly shrinking crowd. Today I mostly see only people of age 50+ who still actively think journalists can provide an accurate worldview for them.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#669
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 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 customer is predominantly the advertiser. Newspapers publish opinions to have something to fill the empty space surrounding the advertisements.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#670
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 don't think it's a bad business decision. I stopped reading the WaPo when I got sick of its partial treatment of everything. And I'm not talking about supporting one candidate or another, I'm talking about sticking to facts and not ideological positions.

This decision by Bezos is a shot across the bow in the right direction, in my opinion. Clear eyed news are needed and aside from FT.com (which these days is also trending toward alarmism) there's precious little left out there. I don't care about a journos' opinion, I really don't. I just want them to report about facts on the ground and not pick sound pieces for clickbaits.

Post reply on HN