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

831–840 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#831

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

This isn't a normal election, or anything remotely close to it. It'd be lovely if we had TWO relatively normal candidates and could vote for them in our normal partisan ways.

You may have noticed that basically everyone in Trump's first term cabinet has come out and called him things ranging from "moron" to "fascist" to a "danger to the country". This is not normal. It's extremely abnormal. It's a warning to the country.

It's at extraordinary times like these when the country needs some leadership, from the media as well as those in power, to highlight the danger. Many senior republicans have stepped up and announced they are going to vote for Harris. It's a very poor look for a newspaper, faced with a once in a lifetime election like this, to effectively say "we're gonna sit this out out - we have no editorial opinion on who is better for the country". Very sad.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#832

Post by maxerickson »

bojan wrote: post #752
maxerickson wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, the election is the thing that is going to resolve the question.

Polls don't really trend though, they tend to settle. Of course significant news can cause people to reevaluate things, but it's probably the case in this election that most people have already made a pretty conclusive decision.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#833

Post by lurking15 »

j_maffe wrote: post #826
graemep wrote: post #825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 shou…

> so-called "independent" news outlet which has clear conflict of interest

If a majority of staff at a news outlet are liberal/progressive isn't that clearly a bias and hard to call independent?

I just notice that people tend to only call out institutional bias in one direction

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#834

Post by rayiner »

oezi wrote: post #820
rayiner wrote: post #809

Earlier quoted context omitted.

White college graduates voted for Biden only by 55-45.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2021/06/30/behind-... Pew says 57 to 42. Evangelicals factor into this I guess.

Sure, different exit polls get slightly different results. Point is that 1.5:1 is quite different than 10:1. And many college graduates are evangelical; the religion just isn’t Christianity.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#835

Post by kcplate »

noobermin wrote: post #822
kcplate wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Point was that leadership of a media company might make editorial decisions that are in its best interest—whatever that interest might be. Not necessarily profit, but could be personal.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#836

Post by graemep »

j_maffe wrote: post #826
graemep wrote: post #825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 shou…

"But whether it's in its interest"

How do you define "its interest"?

It is a business. It does not have interests of its own. its owners have interests - in this case its the one owner who has that. Its staff may have interests, as may other people, and there is always a public interest.

> 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

I agree it is a problem, but, as far as traditional media goes, it is a lost cause. Can you see anything that will cause big media businesses to split themselves?

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#837

Post by big_whack »

lurking15 wrote: post #833
j_maffe wrote: post #826

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 shou…

> so-called "independent" news outlet which has clear conflict of interest If a majority of staff at a news outlet are liberal/progressive isn't that clearly a bias and hard to call independent? I just notice that people tend to only call out institutional bias in one direction

Independence from ownership isn't really a left/right principle. The Washington Post has their set of guiding principles online - I think from those it's pretty clear why there is discontent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/about-the-post

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#838

Post by lapcat »

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…

This is unhelpfully pedantic.

My point is that Bezos would likely make a different decision for The Washington Post if he wasn't concerned about retaliation against his other business interests, and in fact he allowed the paper to make political endorsements in the past.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#839

Post by mc32 »

iambateman wrote: post #823
Teever wrote: post #779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Independent journalism that delves into both/all sides and does not rely on soundbites and extracting things out of context and has no agenda but the truth Like during Covid they would allow vigorous debate about efficacy, lockdowns, deplatforming, etc.

It's a dream but would not last. All sides would attack it for being for whoever the boogeyman they think is.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#840

Post by llamaimperative »

warner25 wrote: post #606
lostdog wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The endorsement lets them write why they support the candidate. Laying out the reasons is what could be convincing, and is what's also being blocked here.

I think the intuition of the parent comment is right, but you also make a fair point[1]. I just wonder if you genuinely believe that any prospective Trump voter could be convinced by any argument to vote for Harris at this point. I mean after all the things that have already been written and said by so many, even by Trump himself, and have failed to convince ~47% of Americans that he's unfit to be the president. Hone…

Undecided voters will decide the election, yes they exist and yes they can change opinions
Post reply on HN