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

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#921

Post by Supermancho »

valval wrote: post #751
markvdb wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is possible if their editorial staff honestly believe two things: - The rule of law and the republic as a process are superior to anything else. - One of the candidates does not subscribe to these sufficiently. In that case, and given the political duopoly, they could still claim to be impartial towards candidates. Their only allegiance/partiality would lie with the rule of law and the republic as a process.

You’re thinking about this too hard. It’s a definitional question. If you have two candidates and you endorse one of them, you’re de facto partial with nothing else playing any role in the definition.

> If you have two candidates and you endorse one of them, you’re de facto partial with nothing else playing any role in the definition.

Endorsing on a specific issue, party, gender, or any specific quality that a large number of individuals share, is not uncommon. The specific individual is not what the endorsement must be partial to. Maybe the choice (since it's inherent to the process), but that's the distinction that was being made.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#922

Post by [deleted] »

ywvcbk wrote: post #901
nomdep wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#923

Post by silexia »

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.

It is NOT censorship when the owner of a company decides what his company will and will not say. It IS censorship when the government squashes a protest again a possibly falsified election and sentences the protestors to decades in prison on trumped up charges.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#924

Post by refurb »

addandsubtract wrote: post #815
refurb wrote: post #774

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't logically follow at all. We're "here without an endorsement" because the media machine decides to talk about it, not because it's significant. The most influential power the media has is what they decide to write about and what they don't. They don't report the news, they make the news.

It doesn't need to follow any logic. Trump is going to use it as an argument and his base is going to parrot it.

> It doesn't need to follow any logic.

Sure it does, when someone says "logically it follows" then there needs to be a logical argument.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#925

Post by ipaddr »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #701
ipaddr wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the capital gains / wealth tax plan goes ahead it would cost Jeff much of his fortune. $10 billion over ten years is peanuts.

But it would also cost his peers proportionally.

Not someone like Bill Gates who moved his wealth into non-profits he controls. Jeff can't just sell Amazon and move out so easily.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#926

Post by AYBABTME »

reverius42 wrote: post #784
AYBABTME wrote: post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's a bad business decision. I stopped reading the WaPo when I got sick of its partial treatment of everything. And I'm not talking about supporting one candidate or another, I'm talking about sticking to facts and not ideological positions. This decision by Bezos is a shot across the bow in the right direction, in my opinion. Clear eyed news are needed and aside from FT.com (which these days is also t…

I think you’re reacting to alarmism as though it’s unwarranted. Have you considered it might actually be warranted?

I did, and I feel like only long and cold headed analysis brought me out of it. It's easier to believe that alarmism is warranted than to think it isn't.

The entire public sphere is freaking out about everything all the time, and catching sound bites, taking things out of context, lacking empathy for opposing viewpoints and clearheadedness. Alarmism these days is the default state. WaPo is participating in this hysteria campaign. Letting the hysteria come into your brain unchecked is not good, but that's the default situation for most people and it leads to alarmism.

I think things are much more boring than people make them out to be, and that it's much harder to keep this perspective. You can't make good decisions when your brain is conditioned to believe in a reality and near-future that is much worse looking than what the actual current reality and near-future looks like.

All this to say, I used to give into this alarmism. Post-extrication from this disposition, I try to be more self-aware and reticent to give in. It starts by seeking more facts and primary sources, or consuming summarized content from entities that are incentivized to, and with a culture of, sticking to the facts.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#927

Post by frugalmail »

dang wrote: post #354
frugalmail wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Could you please stop posting flamewar comments and using HN for political battle? Your account has been doing both. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Will try, just not sure how my comment is at issue when this posting is specifically political content.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#928

Post by dang »

frugalmail wrote: post #927
dang wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please stop posting flamewar comments and using HN for political battle? Your account has been doing both. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Will try, just not sure how my comment is at issue when this posting is specifically political content.

HN comments on political content need to follow the site guidelines, just as on any other content.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#929

Post by tightbookkeeper »

swatcoder wrote: post #335
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?

The idea is that these people spend their days in the weeds, working over stories and leads, getting to know people personally, absorbing information and insight that doesn't make it to print, seeing the connections and threads between all the things they publish, and are literally professional news people the way many of us here are professional technology people who might have some insight on technology topics. You…

But it’s sold as keeping you informed about the world. When it actually is just about what journalists think.

Like you said, that can be valuable, especially in politics, when one hopes they aid your messaging. But it’s not a moral or even practical imperative to keep up with journalism.

Imagine learning about sports through ESPN commentary and never actually watching a game.

A similar professional blindspot occurred when many engineers thought twitter would collapse when Elon fired all those people. Because they see twitter as a piece of software, not a brand and organization.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#930

Post by tightbookkeeper »

selimthegrim wrote: post #592
swatcoder wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is that these people spend their days in the weeds, working over stories and leads, getting to know people personally, absorbing information and insight that doesn't make it to print, seeing the connections and threads between all the things they publish, and are literally professional news people the way many of us here are professional technology people who might have some insight on technology topics. You…

This reminds me of when The New Republic had a bunch of staff quit en masse because the new imported editor was blatantly bullshitting them. He didn’t realize that he was talking to a bunch of professional journalists who knew exactly what being bullshit was like.

Was that the story they wrote about themselves?
Post reply on HN