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

741–750 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#741

Post by lp0_on_fire »

favorited wrote: post #358
Dalewyn wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is regarding endorsements by the outlet as a whole. If someone wants to go out and publicly endorse a candidate on their own name, nobody's stopping them. What Bezos did is say, no, you cannot and will never again slap the Washington Post's name onto your personal endorsement. I think that's fair, he owns the brand, and I think it's also good for journalism overall because it's not a journalist's job to push opi…

> This is regarding endorsements by the outlet as a whole Endorsements are written and attributed to the Editorial Board, not the entire outlet. Examples: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/10/18/opinion/kamala-harris... https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/30/opinion/editorials/kamala... https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/editorials/a/endorsement-pr...

It’s a distinction without a difference to anyone who isn’t being pedantic.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#742

Post by m101 »

So why is it that this is about money and Amazon contracts? Why isn't it about Kamala just being so bad, in Bezos's eyes, that she doesn't deserve an endorsement. I think that's way more likely.

I am not surprised however that the liberal media will look for any problem over admitting it's their own candidate that's the problem.

Bezos owns 9% of Amazon. His personal share of any 10bn contract might be a few hundred million over many years. He doesn't care!

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#744

Post by janalsncm »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #635
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…

Politics is simply preference. The shape of the earth is not.

It’s a bit more than that in my mind. Political candidates at this point are telling vastly different stories about the reality we live in. The changes they want to make follow from the story they are telling.

It’s not that politicians share a common set of facts and just have differences of opinion about how to best accomplish the same goal. They are telling vastly different stories. In some sense, the more compelling story wins.

So I see a pretty direct connection between facts and political preference.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#745

Post by edanm »

m101 wrote: post #742

So why is it that this is about money and Amazon contracts? Why isn't it about Kamala just being so bad, in Bezos's eyes, that she doesn't deserve an endorsement. I think that's way more likely. I am not surprised however that the liberal media will look for any problem over admitting it's their own candidate that's the problem. Bezos owns 9% of Amazon. His personal share of any 10bn contract might be a few hundred m…

> Bezos owns 9% of Amazon. His personal share of any 10bn contract might be a few hundred million over many years. He doesn't care!

The rest of your comment aside, I think this sentence proves too much. You can use it to prove that Bezos doesn't care about almost anything in Amazon, or that most billionaires don't care much about what happens in their companies, because it only impacts a small part of their already vast fortune.

It's pretty clear that this is not true for many billionaires.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#746

Post by eapressoandcats »

cryptonector wrote: post #734
eapressoandcats wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bezos own the paper, so it's _his_ first amendment right, not the editorial board's.

Sure but the concern is that he did it to appease the government which will retaliate against speech under Trump.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#748

Post by elcritch »

loongloong wrote: post #720

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?

Maybe restore the Celler-Kefauver act (1)?

1: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/the-celler-kefauver-act...

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#749

Post by janalsncm »

sleepybrett wrote: post #250
janalsncm wrote: post #144

> CNBC has requested comment from Amazon. According to the article, Jeff Bezos is presumably afraid that Trump would continue to punish Amazon. If that is the case, this seems like an entirely futile exercise. Not that corporate PR responses are ever particularly illuminating. I read an article regarding information conveyed per syllable. English was near the top. Languages with less information per syllable like Spa…

No, he's fucking terrified of lina khan. He won't endorse trump and poke the bear and he won't endorse harris because he's embittered. He's a cowardly monopolist.

That doesn’t make sense to me. Lina Khan already doesn’t like Amazon, she cut her teeth at Yale calling them out for antitrust. How is not endorsing Kamala Harris going to smooth that over? And it’s WaPo, which is entirely separate from Amazon as far as antitrust is concerned.

Even within the internal logic of the equivalency between Donald Trump and Lena Khan it doesn’t make sense. It’s pretty clear he is afraid of Trump.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#750

Post by danans »

eapressoandcats wrote: post #599
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.

Whatever his reason, this isn't a first amendment issue because it's a private entity constraining its own speech, not the government.
Post reply on HN