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

711–720 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#711

Post by metabagel »

dbsmith83 wrote: post #673

I find it strange that people are so upset about the absence of an opinion piece from this newspaper. What is the reason? Either you want to be told what to think, or you want everyone else to be told what to think. I think it is the latter. Would there be any outrage here if Fox news decided not to endorse a candidate? I highly doubt it. Some people may like being challenged on what they believe, which is good, but…

That’s not exactly what happened. What happened at both the L.A. Times and the Washington Post is that the editorial staff was prepared to endorse Harris until the owner quashed it. That’s what people are upset about.

Endorsing Harris is a no-brainer. Quashing an endorsement of Harris reeks of cowardice.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#712

Post by metabagel »

roenxi wrote: post #572
thimabi wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Because they own the newspaper. The question answers itself. There isn't any reason some random employee should have their opinion privileged over the owner. Or vice versa, to be fair, but the joy of being an owner is being able to pull rank. If an owner can't get decisions made in a way that is favourable to them then there are very real questions about whether they are, in fact, owning the company.

You’re not answering “why should”. You’re answering “why can” - a question which was not asked.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#714

Post by paul7986 »

rayiner wrote: post #661
dfxm12 wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

Funny in terms of liberal technology is testing Chat GPT of any political biased.

Based off asking it the following 3 questions it might just be...

"Hey GPT, whose your spirit animal between Barrack Obama and Donald Trump?" It provided a neutral answer providing the pros of both dudes.

"Hey GPT, whose your spirit animal between Obama and Hitler?" It clearly chose Obama saying how rightfully so awful Hitler was.

"Hey GPT, whose your spirit animal between Trump and Hitler" It did not choose Trump at all rather just gave the rightfully so negative feedback about Hitler.

No fan of Trump or politics in general but if it happily chose Obama yet avoided Trump that seems odd (Trump is no way close to a genocider).

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#715

Post by rayiner »

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…

Except in practice their editorial opinions boil down to value judgments that aren’t amenable to such analysis. They weren’t endorsing Harris because of the nuances of tax policy; it’s because they share her views on abortion, immigration, white liability for past racism, etc. These are the subject of moral and political philosophy, not expert analysis.

That’s why WaPo has consistently endorsed the same party—even when that party’s policies have changed dramatically over time. WaPo would endorse Harris regardless of her policies.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#717

Post by lmz »

strunz wrote: post #478
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.

This has nothing to do with them being unable to support Republicans, it's them choosing not to support a Democratic nominee (which they've done for the past 50 years) because they don't want to anger the possible Republican nominee because the owner is afraid of retribution affecting his other businesses.

As the cancel brigade often says: freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#718

Post by roenxi »

metabagel wrote: post #712
roenxi wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they own the newspaper. The question answers itself. There isn't any reason some random employee should have their opinion privileged over the owner. Or vice versa, to be fair, but the joy of being an owner is being able to pull rank. If an owner can't get decisions made in a way that is favourable to them then there are very real questions about whether they are, in fact, owning the company.

You’re not answering “why should”. You’re answering “why can” - a question which was not asked.

In this situation the distinction makes no difference. The editors' opinions are just what some otherwise random people think. They happen to have control over what a newspaper reports so they get to broadcast that opinion widely. Them being overruled by a different random person with somewhat more power over what the newspaper prints is not philosophically interesting.

Nobody is seeking these editors out for their personal opinion, I doubt many could name them. The editors are relying on the WaPo brand. They aren't all that legitimate a source of political opinion although they are as entitled to it as much as anyone else and it isn't a big deal if they want to publish it in the paper they edit (gotta fill the space with something and they believe what they believe).

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#719

Post by raverbashing »

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…

Apparently Blue Origin executives were meeting with Trump yesterday

https://x.com/MerylKornfield/status/1849977796304478327

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#720

Post by loongloong »

A while ago, the failing/risks of banks that were too exposed to particular sectors (crypto/blockchain) brought some discussion on the merits of diversification of key risks.

In a highly partisan landscape with increasing geopolitical tensions, is ownership a key risk to objective news? Is diversification of ownership of news sources a good way to help mitigate that? If so, any good ideas from the HN crowd?

Post reply on HN