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

851–860 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#851

Post by j_maffe »

graemep wrote: post #836
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…

"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 s…

Well, it is an entity of its own that claims to strive for certain objectives (including the obvious one of being profitable). The owner could decide to change those objectives and make something new of it. The WSJ definitely has a set of interests that managers have a duty to satisfy, until the owner decides to change those interests. If they change their motto to "whatever Bezos needs" then it's problem solved. I don't see that on their about page, though.

> Can you see anything that will cause big media businesses to split themselves?

Who said anything about it needing to be voluntary. Regulation is a thing.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#853

Post by southernplaces7 »

Probably already mentioned in the comments below, but the subtext here is obvious. Bezos thinks Trump is very likely to win and he has killed this endorsement because it might screw his broad business interests in all kinds of ways under the administration of a vengeful Trump. The nature of Amazon makes it much more exposed to regulatory heat inside the U.S than would be the case for a more purely digital tech-driven firm like, say, Meta.

Aside from the likely cynicism of the move, the cliquish criticism of Bezos reeks of moralizing hypocrisy. Is there some exact moral duty among major tech company founders to effusively endorse specifically progressive, liberal elite-endorsed democrat candidates, to show their own kumbaya credentials? Bullshit. Even the ones who vigorously support democrat politicians are no less self interested in doing so. It almost always boils down to money and favorable regulations, whether someone supports the donkey or the elephant.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#854

Post by lapcat »

vakkermans wrote: post #846
lapcat wrote: post #808

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 cons…

I quoted the bit I wanted to react to, namely the idea that businesses have to give customers what they want. I read that as strongly influenced by an economically driven - rather than morally driven - world view. Leaving money on the table does not necessarily mean a failing business, except for some extreme definition of 'failing'. I meant to argue against your first assertion, not your second; I'm not concerned wi…

> I quoted the bit I wanted to react to, namely the idea that businesses have to give customers what they want. I read that as strongly influenced by an economically driven - rather than morally driven - world view.

It's simply practically driven. You can try to give people what they "need" rather than what they want, but in a free country and a free market system, people cannot be force-fed. They can choose whether or not to buy what you're selling. All the good intentions in the world will go nowhere if nobody is listening.

> Leaving money on the table does not necessarily mean a failing business

True, but I wasn't referring to that. Ruthless profit maximization is not the same as giving the majority of prospective customers what they want. The former isn't required, but the latter is usually required to sustain the business.

Imagine if a grocery store stocked only healthy food and got rid of all the junk food. It would go out of business, because people want their junk food and will go elsewhere for it.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#855

Post by [deleted] »

jdgoesmarching wrote: post #294
SavageBeast wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it censorship when your boss forbids you publishing your personal opinion as the official position of his company? It's funny reading the comments here but has anyone considered that Bezos may in fact support Trump? Bezos is a billionaire and Harris seeks to target them to fix the deficit. Its just possible Bezos supports Trump and it makes economic sense too, though its terribly unfashionable to come out and say…

Yes, that is censorship. It used to be unpopular around here. Maybe you’re fine with it when an anointed shareholder does it, but that’s what it is. It’s a big deal that a major historic news organization’s editorial board is overruled by the owner, whether or not you agree with the decision.

[deleted]

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#856

Post by dllthomas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #640
zahlman wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kamala Harris currently has a popular vote advantage on the order of 51-49, but in the American system ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_Colleg... ) effectively only the "swing states" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_state ) matter. One of the best respected analysts in the business, Nate Silver, currently has Trump at a 53% probability of winning ( https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/202…

> One of the best respected analysts in the business, Nate Silver, currently has Trump at a 53% probability of winning ( https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/ ) You mean G. Elliot Morris; Nate Silver has nothing to do with fivethirtyeight any more (since he and Disney broke up, he now has his own private subscription publication— Silver Bulletin —which also does forecasting and which has much b…

My understanding is that Silver's model has been more favorable to Trump than 538, by virtue of 538 having Kamala up just a little while Silver had her up less or Trump up a little. In the past couple days 538 shifted a little toward Trump; I'm not sure Silver's model did the same. His updates have been saying "small moves, still basically tied" for a while, but like you I'm outside the paywall.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#857

Post by DonHopkins »

yieldcrv wrote: post #698
DonHopkins wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

and the profession is also populated by people that went to specific universities, in specific cities and have a specific voting record that's the standard people are using and can be corroborated

So what? That's an incoherent irrelevant response that doesn't address any of the points I raised. Are you just trying to pull off "The Weave" by emulating Trump? You do realize that's just a lame excuse for incompetence and dementia, not an intentional debate strategy, don't you?

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#858

Post by nomdep »

eapressoandcats wrote: post #622
nomdep wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sick of this absurd FUD. You surely must realize that the claims that if Trump wins, democracy is going to end are just fearmongering, don't you?

It’s… really not? The dude tried to overturn the previous election, and repeatedly threatens to throw his enemies in jail. Senior members of his own staff have flat out said he’s a fascist and he’s literally running on a promise to round up millions of people and put them in camps. Like probably we’ll still have elections but you know, so do Hungary and Russia.

Ok, so if he wins (seems likely even to WaPo) and those thing doesn’t happen, are you going to think “I was wrong” or double down on “he really wanted to do it but they didn’t let him”

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#859

Post by giraffe_lady »

southernplaces7 wrote: post #853

Probably already mentioned in the comments below, but the subtext here is obvious. Bezos thinks Trump is very likely to win and he has killed this endorsement because it might screw his broad business interests in all kinds of ways under the administration of a vengeful Trump. The nature of Amazon makes it much more exposed to regulatory heat inside the U.S than would be the case for a more purely digital tech-driven…

It's not a novel observation but there's another conclusion you can draw from the same information: it's in bezos's best interest for trump to win and he wants him to.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#860

Post by unethical_ban »

dmix wrote: post #510
sgnelson wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While you may not take this as proof it affected this exact decision, it's hard to ignore it as a possible reason. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/10/amazon-wants-to-depose-presi...

Bezos wants to help elect someone who (his lawyers allege) killed a gov contract favourable to his own business? Or did I misread your comment.

The theory is that Bezos is scared of endorsing Harris then seeing Trump elected.
Post reply on HN