[flagged]
Not all billionaires - Bill Gates endorsed Harris.
[dead]
Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris
801–810 of 1001 posts
Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris
#802Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Trump fans boycotting Amazon is a consequence.
The US government punishing Amazon is not.
The first amendments limits the governemt in its actions, not the people.
Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris
#803Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem for BBC is that it's government-funded. That's not factually accurate. The BBC is principally funded through the licence fee (i.e. directly by the viewers).
It's inherently dependent on the government. The viewers don't get together and voluntarily decide to fund it. Unfortunately I don't think there's a single such organisation in the world-- controlled-by-members newspaper. Even almost-controlled-by-members newspapers here in Sweden aren't fully subject to member control, with this typically being indirect through some board or similar organisation.
Guardian comes to mind.
Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris
#804Newspapers 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…
that’s some mental gymnastics. so newspapers are free to publish opinions, it is in their business interest………………(but only if the opinion is the one I want otherwise it is not good business)
> so newspapers are free to publish opinions
That's a strange way of putting it. Newspapers are free to publish anything, by the first amendment to the Constitution.
> but only if the opinion is the one I want otherwise it is not good business
I didn't say that. I said that people want to read opinions. Sometimes they enjoy reading opinions that they disagree with, and arguing with those opinions.
Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris
#805Newspapers 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 t…
> I just want them to report about facts on the ground and not pick sound pieces for clickbaits.
There's no evidence of an overall change in the newspaper's direction. Bezos did not fire all of the opinion editors, for example. Neither did Bezos announce this "policy" in advance. It was a last-minute retraction after the editors had already drafted an endorsement.
Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris
#806Newspapers 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.
> Calling it a "bad business decision" just reveals your political preference.
It absolutely does not. You have no idea what my political preferences are, and I'm quite confident that your guesses are wrong.
Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris
#807Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 wh…
> 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. A candidate's social policies may be more important to some people than their fiscal policies. So an analysis of their social policies would be more useful to those readers t…
There’s little meaningful “analysis” to be done about such policies. Just pledging agreement or disagreement with those philosophical beliefs. And that’s why such endorsements by journalists tend to undermine trust.
Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris
#808Newspapers 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. I really want to challenge this idea. Businesses can have missions quite distinct from what the majority of their prospective customers would want. If I had practically unlimited money I wouldn't ever think of funding a news organisation and then only have it produce content that customers wanted. I would have a purpose for it, stemming from…
> Businesses can have missions quite distinct from what the majority of their prospective customers would want.
Failing businesses.
> I would have a purpose for it, stemming from my own ethics.
I never said that business is inherently in conflict with ethics, and I, as an entrepreneur myself, believe that ethics are necessary for business: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41951447
> I think it quite naive to consider Bezos has not done the same and that this decision is simply in line with his personal political interests.
I claimed that his decision is simply in line with his personal interests. Whether those are financial interests or political interests is difficult to determine. Nonetheless, the decision was bad for The Washington Post. Compare to Twitter/X: Elon Musk is indisputably using the social network he acquired for his personal political interests, and that has indisputably been bad for the business, driven away users and advertisers, and his creditors have vastly downgraded the value of the investment.
> Neoliberalism is a really poor substitute for personal morality and accountability.
This seems like a nonsequitur. How is "Neoliberalism" relevant? Is that what you believe I proposed? If so, you're wrong.
Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris
#809Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Among journalists, Democrats outnumber Republicans 10 to 1 This seems to be a general observation when looking at college educated people that they lean more towards the Democratic party. Hard to combat such a bias.
White college graduates voted for Biden only by 55-45.
Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris
#810Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the implicit argument is that he wants to avoid more canceled contracts, along with other forms of retribution like personal attacks he experienced a few years earlier.
> I think the implicit argument is that he wants to avoid more canceled contracts, along with other forms of retribution like personal attacks he experienced a few years earlier. That makes no sense at all. If the primary concern was avoiding canceled contracts, it would be in his best interests to ensure that the guy who is threatening to cancel contracts out of spite would not be elected. Pressuring the Washington…
It sure makes sense.
The endorsement is extremely unlikely to decide the election.
On the contrary, the chance that the endorsement will lead to retribution after a lost election is arguably much higher. They think it happened last time around.
You can say it's cowardly to act like this. But it does make sense.