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

751–760 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#751

Post by valval »

markvdb wrote: post #706
edm0nd wrote: post #654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>by improving its perceived impartiality Can WaPo really be perceived as "impartial" if we know they already were going to endorse Harris?

That is possible if their editorial staff honestly believe two things: - The rule of law and the republic as a process are superior to anything else. - One of the candidates does not subscribe to these sufficiently. In that case, and given the political duopoly, they could still claim to be impartial towards candidates. Their only allegiance/partiality would lie with the rule of law and the republic as a process.

You’re thinking about this too hard. It’s a definitional question. If you have two candidates and you endorse one of them, you’re de facto partial with nothing else playing any role in the definition.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#752

Post by bojan »

maxerickson wrote: post #136
bojan wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is, unfortunately, a clear favourite to win. You don't have to have uber-intel to know that.

From my corner of rural Michigan, the relative sentiment shift appears to be massively in favor of Harris. I don't really trust my opinion, and I have a pretty limited perspective on what people in other areas think, but between 2020 and now, there is much increased support for Harris compared to Biden, and much more muted support for Trump 2024 compared to Trump 2020. With the polling mildly in favor of Harris in ke…

By following polls, and the way they are trending. And the odds seem to be moving daily towards Trump, and while we're still in coin toss territory, if this trend continues for the next 10 days, it's really looking bad for Harris, despite the shift in your area.

If I'm wrong, please let me know, as I'd really like to be proven wrong here.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#753

Post by valval »

fenomas wrote: post #546
nickff wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> not endorsing candidates might be good for the Washington Post's business, by improving its perceived impartiality You're at the wrong meta level - if the paper's owner is making the editorial decisions, there's no impartiality to perceive in the first place. I mean, if the question at hand was "should the editors endorse someone?" then what you're saying could stand. But that's out the window if they're being over…

We can easily bring the meta level down one more step to conclude that given the editorial staff are individuals with different beliefs, this dictates that they’re impartial to the extent of the (weighted) average of their beliefs.

I’d argue impartiality isn’t a thing in any human domain anyway.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#754

Post by vampirical »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #372
tvaughan wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well said. Journalists also don’t have to give equal weight to the other side when the other side are whackadoodles

Unfortunately both sides seem to think this of the other side equally.

Which doesn’t matter in the slightest. What’s our best understanding of what’s objectively true? That one side is actually stupid, insane, or evil.

I at least, am out of patience for sophistry as if this is just a normal and innocent difference of perspective.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#755

Post by valval »

digdugdirk wrote: post #608
seizethecheese wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. This is the exception rather than the rule. The more corporate, the more likely to give the people what they want.

Isn't that contrary to the purpose of news organizations? They should give the people what they need to know, not what they want.

Who’s to be the judge of what people need to know?

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#756

Post by michaelhoney »

kernal wrote: post #610
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.

Ridiculous is thinking there is no legacy liberal media bias. Take the top 100 political articles from WaPo and the NYT from this year and tell me how many are anti Republican. I’m guessing nearly all of them.

it’s true that reporting the facts about what the 2024 incarnation of the GOP does makes them look bad

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#757

Post by UncleMeat »

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 editorial board is separated from the newsroom and consistently writes persuasive opinions in the editorial page. "We think you should vote for X" is not structurally different from anything else that appears on the editorial page.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#758

Post by calf »

rightbyte wrote: post #481
calf wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neutrality is problematic because in practice it serves the powerful, like every instance of bureaucracy and scientism we can point to through civilized history. Instead you are appealing to some politics-free context-free notion of neutrality which might as well be a made up word then. Humans and institutions are not truth objects, so your incorrect argument is in conflating this with a discussion of access to truth…

The powerful by definition control us. Otherwise they wouldn't be powerful. I don't see your point. To me the notion of trying to be neutral seem to give the powerful less power than being "political". I.e. it is better if the puppets think they are living in a fair democracy, since they might act like they do, decreasing the power of the puppet masters. The opposite is concepts like the series "House of cards", that…

Then you need to finish high school, because if you define neutral as "trying not to be not-neutral" then you are using a circular definition and so you really need to work on your basic skills which are usually taught by high school.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#759

Post by defrost »

kernal wrote: post #610
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.

Ridiculous is thinking there is no legacy liberal media bias. Take the top 100 political articles from WaPo and the NYT from this year and tell me how many are anti Republican. I’m guessing nearly all of them.

Many express fondness for Reagan era Republicans and lament their absence.

There's support for Liz Cheney, a former chair of the House Republican Conference, coming out against Trump et al.

Are you sure "anti-Republican" is what you're seeing and not just calling out the MAGA faction for their behaviour?

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#760

Post by kuschkufan »

fallingknife wrote: post #683
iambateman wrote: post #601

Let’s zoom out from the present election and remember how Bezos took over… 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…

I don't doubt that, but what company isn't compromised in favor of its owner's interests?

[flagged]
Post reply on HN