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

821–830 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#821

Post by thimabi »

roenxi wrote: post #718
metabagel wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

Wouldn’t you say that the WaPo brand owns its prestige much to the journalists, editors and other professionals who build the newspaper on a day by day basis?

These are not random people whose opinion matter as much as those of other random people. At least in theory, people seek the Post for the quality of the work done by the editorial staff. Accordingly, the staff should have more — not less — influence over the content of the paper.

No one buys the Post out of a wish to read Bezos’ personal views or those of random strangers.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#822

Post by noobermin »

kcplate wrote: post #261
bogantech wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But that's not what happened here. The editors did their normal endorsement process, but the owner of the paper stepped in and personally overrode their process for this one particular endorsement. He owns the paper, they just work there.

Honestly it’s surprising to me that people really think that the news side of a media company operates with complete autonomy from the business side. They might claim it exists but that’s a fallacy. I worked at a major daily newspaper 30 years ago and I personally know of two cases in my short tenure there where news stories were killed because they didn’t want to piss off important advertisers. I am also aware of a…

Advertisers is one thing, but where's the business sense in not reporting on an executive? That sounds like a little fiefdom, not something that makes "business sense."

Whenever people say stuff like this it reminds me why I'm wary whenever people mention things being business friendly or pro-market because it has a lot to do with protecting certain people who already have a good position over merely following market forces.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#823

Post by iambateman »

Teever wrote: post #779
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…

Does an apology matter? Do we really need one? How will an apology from Bezos improvement life? What would improve mymlife are clear concrete actions not measly words.

Honestly, it’s all words unless the paper itself is sold to an independent nonprofit solely devoted to journalism.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#824

Post by dustincoates »

CalChris wrote: post #660
SamDc73 wrote: post #580

> "Katharine Graham the previous owner of the Washington Post during the Watergate years was threatened by Holden who famously said, and I will leave out a bit of the quote because it's too crude to say out on the stage, but he said you tell Kate Graham if she prints that we'll put here blank through a big fat ringer, and then they actually worked to try get their broadcast license resented, it's completely un-Americ…

That was Nixon's AG, John Mitchell, who said that and it happened in 1972. Graham died in 2001, well before Eric Holder was ever Attorney General. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Graham

You're right that it was Mitchell, but Bezos wasn't referring to Eric Holder, but to Bob Haldeman, WH CoS under Nixon.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#825

Post by graemep »

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…

> Jeff Bezos, has a conflict of interest

He is the outright (ultimate, through a holding company) owner of The Washington Post.

Therefore there is no conflict of interest. He gets to decide what its interests are.

I think it is worth asking whether it is in the public interest to allow people with other extensive business interests to own influential media businesses, but that is usual these days. Most media is owned by media (and sometimes more) conglomerates with many interests around the world.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#826

Post by j_maffe »

graemep wrote: post #825
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…

> Jeff Bezos, has a conflict of interest He is the outright (ultimate, through a holding company) owner of The Washington Post. Therefore there is no conflict of interest. He gets to decide what its interests are. I think it is worth asking whether it is in the public interest to allow people with other extensive business interests to own influential media businesses, but that is usual these days. Most media is owned…

> He gets to decide what its interests are.

No he doesn't. He can choose to do with it whatever he may like. But whether it's in its interest or not is a property purely derived from the current state of the journal and the market. Whether he likes it or not.

And, yes, the issue stems from business ownership of a so-called "independent" news outlet which has clear conflict of interest. Which is something that we should not accept and continue fighting against, whether it's usual or not.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#827

Post by guiriduro »

jll29 wrote: post #408
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.

> 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…

The Guardian was a reasonably good source of news under Rubsbridger, under Viner its biases have worsened and its most courageous reporters, opinion writers and even cartoonists have been either sidelined or fired. Avoid.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#828

Post by pokerface_86 »

gotoeleven wrote: post #672
fma wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservatives keep moving the goal post. I see a less criticism of conservatives due to the fear of being labeled as bias. i.e. the coverage of Biden's cognitive decline vs Trump's cognitive decline.

[flagged]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/trump-said-hitler-...

maybe take a look in the fucking mirror if you want to stop being called hitler LMFAO

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#829

Post by hoppyhoppy2 »

edm0nd wrote: post #654
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…

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

There's a difference between the opinion staff and the news staff.

>The Post’s decision has roiled many on the paper’s opinions staff, which operates independently from The Post’s news staff, a long-standing tradition of American journalism designed to separate opinion writing from day-to-day news coverage.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/10/25/washin...

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#830

Post by pokerface_86 »

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.

why don’t you take a look at the republican party’s policies and think about why that is?
Post reply on HN