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

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#901

Post by ywvcbk »

nomdep wrote: post #125
jp_nc wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats because of the calculation: - Endorse Harris and Trump wins, Trump will seek revenge on Bezos and Amazon (he tried this in the first term) - Endorse Trump and Harris wins, Harris will not act outside the bounds of a normal government official This is capitulation to the perceived threats of a Trump presidency and is very bad.

> Harris will not act outside the bounds of a normal government official California has even blocked SpaceX because they don't like the politics of Musk ( https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-10-11/la-me-sp... ) so I would say is risky to expect any of the two (or its followers) not seeking revenge.

Presumably you have to draw a line somewhere, though? There is not liking someone's political views and there is not liking someone's attempts to undermine the whole country by (possibly purposefully) selling it to Russia etc.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#902

Post by 0x457 »

noncoml wrote: post #353
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…

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.

BBC stopped being impartial shortly after start of Iraq's invasion in 2001. It's not as polarizing as Fox News and CNN, but it's _far_ from being impartial.

Their coverage of international events only impartial if those events have no effect on UK.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#903

Post by 0x457 »

akira2501 wrote: post #542
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…

> Newspapers are a business and have to give their customers what they want. Isn't that supposed to be news and not worthless institutional opinions on the presidential office? > It's unlikely that an independent owner with no conflict of interest would make the same decision. An unconflicted owner wouldn't endorse either candidate. In general, hopefully, but in this election, particularly.

> Isn't that supposed to be news and not worthless institutional opinions on the presidential office?

That's the goal of Journalism. Newspaper only goals: sell newspapers, sell ads in those newspapers (and since it we live in the age of internet - their website).

> An unconflicted owner wouldn't endorse either candidate. In general, hopefully, but in this election, particularly.

unconflicted owner's opinion shouldn't effect editorial staff opinions.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#904

Post by 0x457 »

dazc wrote: post #737
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…

'...sacrificing it and losing readers for the sake of his other business interests, i.e., government contracts.' Sound point unless you figure Bezos is accepting government may be about to change?

WaPo takes a hit if they don't endorse, but that's not Bezos's core business. If they endorse Kamala and Trump wins - other businesses of Bezos would suffer. Basically it's safer to not endorse anyone.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#905

Post by Thuggery »

adamc wrote: post #450
null0pointer wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

I don't want to read a newspaper where the owner is suppressing -- well, anything -- because of concerns for how it might affect his fortune. I want the owner walled off.

Well you have been. The consent was always being manufactured. A certain controversial fellow by the name of Chomsky pointed out decades ago that media would inevitably reflect biases of their owners and staff, and the needs to be a for profit business.

It would seem you didn't care or notice because there previously wasn't an opinion conflict with the owners.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#906

Post by 6yyyyyy »

dehrmann wrote: post #521
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?

My gripe with endorsements is they imply people can't think critically for themselves.

I find endorsements very valuable when voting in down-ballot elections. A good endorsement includes the reasoning behind the decision. I read the endorsements of multiple outlets and find myself agreeing more with one or the other.

What's the alternative, do comprehensive research on the record of 20 candidates? I don't have time for that. Read the blurbs they write about themselves in the voter's guide? Why should I trust that, they can write anything there.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#907

Post by unethical_ban »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #876
unethical_ban wrote: post #868

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think he gets it. This election is not a normal election, sadly far from it. It's not business-as-usual about policies, personalities and partly loyalties. This election is, sadly, about paying heed to the warnings that have been given to you by the cabinet members, incl. military generals, that worked most closely with Trump in his first term, and the senior Republicans who are voting Democrat. When multiple…

It looks like that account never engages in conversation after they've made their statement.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#908

Post by kernal »

michaelhoney wrote: post #756
kernal wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

it’s true that reporting the facts about what the 2024 incarnation of the GOP does makes them look bad

Not really. The liberal legacy media are just democrat shills that will do anything to get their party over the line.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#909

Post by adamc »

Thuggery wrote: post #905
adamc wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to read a newspaper where the owner is suppressing -- well, anything -- because of concerns for how it might affect his fortune. I want the owner walled off.

Well you have been. The consent was always being manufactured. A certain controversial fellow by the name of Chomsky pointed out decades ago that media would inevitably reflect biases of their owners and staff, and the needs to be a for profit business. It would seem you didn't care or notice because there previously wasn't an opinion conflict with the owners.

Everything ever written reflects biases. That isn't the interesting part.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#910

Post by kernal »

pokerface_86 wrote: post #830
kernal wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why don’t you take a look at the past 4 years and reflect upon the train wreck the democrats have caused?
Post reply on HN