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

861–870 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#861

Post by unethical_ban »

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?

Your question is irrelevant. If Bezos or the leadership of the post had an ideological issue with endorsements, they should have decided that 6 months ago or one month from now.

It is blatantly obvious that this decision was done solely for Bezos business interests. Ignoring this and leaning into a theoretical debate to defend the decision is insulting.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#862

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

hoppyhoppy2 wrote: post #829
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?

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...

I understand the internal logic of newsroom design, but if it was ever a genuine firewall it's not in modern times. The NY Times opinion editor was famously forced to resign in 2020 when he published an op-ed that the newsroom found unacceptable.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#864

Post by graemep »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #845
graemep wrote: post #836

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> 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 You nailed it here: bezos, as the dude who owns the paper has a vested interest in his personal success, whether the paper succeeds or not. If it came down to him or the paper, he would choose himself. The editorial team, as the people who run the paper and a…

> has a vested interest in the success of the paper

What defines the success of the paper? Why do employees rather than the owner (who ultimately appoints them) get to decide?

It is a business. If it was a non-profit organisation you would have a point (although I do not personally think much of the big non for profit media organisations I can think of). Even if it had a structure designed to promote other values over profits (as Reuters does) you would have a point. In this case, AFAIK, it is simply the property of its owner. People get to decide what to do with their property.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#865

Post by jwkpiano1 »

cryptonector wrote: post #852

Evidence that Bezos might have had good reasons to nix his paper's endorsement: the Nation withdrew its earlier endorsement of Haris: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/kamala-harris-cou...

A piece written by the interns is absolutely not a withdrawal of the endorsement by the Nation. Please don’t mislead people.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#866

Post by unethical_ban »

selimthegrim wrote: post #594
screye wrote: post #467

The Venn diagram of those who'd be influenced by a WaPo endorsement and committed Kamala Harris voters is a perfect intersection. For 50 years, WaPo has endorsed the democratic candidate [1] for president. No mystery here. It's a pointless endorsement. [1] https://noahveltman.com/endorsements/

1988 isn’t 50 years

They skipped 88 because the editorial board decided they didn't want to endorse.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#867

Post by unethical_ban »

chairmansteve wrote: post #465
greenthrow wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's east to think that way but if it didn't matter, Bezos wouldn't have squashed it.

It matters to Trump, therefore it matters to Bezos. Probably not a single voter cares.

I care that half the country is preparing to elect a man who blackmails newspaper owners due to their own vanity.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#868

Post by unethical_ban »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #385
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure you're mostly right, but there are no doubt a few still on the fence, which can only either be people who have not been exposed to the truth about Trump (e.g. people who only watch Trump sane-washed sources like Fox), or republicans who are well aware of the danger he poses, but are having a hard time accepting that the responsible thing to do is vote against him. For the few that are still on the fence, the…

I haven’t decided myself. My vote doesn’t especially matter because of the state I live in but I do like to vote as an experience. It’s not that I particularly like Trump as an individual (quite the opposite), but Harris is just very unappealing to me from a policy standpoint. I do think that the Hitler comparison undermines any point you are trying to make so maybe tone it down a bit.

What policies are unappealing to you from Harris? What policies do you like from Trump? His tariffs , his plan to create internment camps for undocumented residents? His sycophancy for Putin? His willingness to ramp up offensive capabilities for Israel, or his preference for shutting down Ukraine? Or perhaps you like his "tough on dissidents" policy where he is documented to have wanted to use live rounds from active US military on protesters in DC? Are you one of the millions of people who think that Trump will make egg prices go back down to $2 a dozen? Do you think Trump is going to continue the Democratic legacy of making health care more affordable for citizens?

Just trying to gather details.

Edit: I'm gonna have to spin up alternate accounts again for the first time in a decade if I get told one more time to "slow down" my posts.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#870

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

graemep wrote: post #864
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #845

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 You nailed it here: bezos, as the dude who owns the paper has a vested interest in his personal success, whether the paper succeeds or not. If it came down to him or the paper, he would choose himself. The editorial team, as the people who run the paper and a…

> has a vested interest in the success of the paper What defines the success of the paper? Why do employees rather than the owner (who ultimately appoints them) get to decide? It is a business. If it was a non-profit organisation you would have a point (although I do not personally think much of the big non for profit media organisations I can think of). Even if it had a structure designed to promote other values ove…

> What defines the success of the paper?

The people who run it, day-in and day-out, are best-equipped to answer this question.

> Why do employees rather than the owner (who ultimately appoints them) get to decide?

Because each employee fits the above criteria, and is thus better-poised to make such a judgement compared to one single person who is not. And when it comes to multiple-such, better-equipped judges, the disparity becomes starker.

> People get to decide what to do with their property.

This is a red herring. Nobody is saying bezos can't decide what to do with his property. He's just not as well equipped as Post employees, to judge whether his decision is good for The Post.

After all, having money obviously doesn't mean you have better info, or have more context, or make superior judgements. In some cases it just means you got a good head-start because your dad owned an apartheid emerald mine, or a portfolio of new york slums.

Post reply on HN