Bezos utilizing unorthodox reverse psychology techniques to delegitimize trump and bolster support for harris
Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris
931–940 of 1001 posts
Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris
#932Newspapers 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…
Companies (mainly media based) have been moving from giving the customers what the customers want, to giving the customers what the company wants. This is just another one of those.
Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris
#933Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris
#934> CNBC has requested comment from Amazon. According to the article, Jeff Bezos is presumably afraid that Trump would continue to punish Amazon. If that is the case, this seems like an entirely futile exercise. Not that corporate PR responses are ever particularly illuminating. I read an article regarding information conveyed per syllable. English was near the top. Languages with less information per syllable like Spa…
He's afraid of Vance. Trump is an egoist but Vance has an ideological dislike of amazon.
Citation needed for your claim. I bet Vance likes Amazon and orders packages with 1 or 2 day shipping like everyone else.
Usually it’s the likes of Elizabeth Warren et all that attack Amazon and similar sized companies.
Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris
#935Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris
#936Earlier quoted context omitted.
lol... maybe he does? Number of trump signs vs. harris signs bought on Amazon? (yes i know Jeff doesn't work there, but y'know...)
Any sign of strength than can be bought (i.e. fake strength), probably already has been bought by Musk and/or others trying for influence the election. They say the sudden betting market swing for Trump from a few weeks ago comes from overseas money (4 people, maybe all the same), but I'd not be surprised if Musk were behind it given that he's out there trying to buy people's votes.
On one hand, overseas money in betting markets has less bias and more neutrality. Example: a man in Australia does not care who wins and is able to see it all as an outsider from above. Regardless of whether he is gay or straight. Foreign politics is not connected to their identity and foreign politics does not map over neatly to domestic politics.
You’re able to see this for yourself when you travel to other countries and talk to people you meet about the politics in their country in person. Suddenly, magically, you’re able to see both or all sides and actually listen instead of selectively listen.
On the other hand, one would say people closer to the issue are the more informed ones and that’s usually correct. A counter point is people closer to the issue are being targeted by more advertising and usually we associate targeted advertising with causing a populace to become more misinformed rather than more informed. The primary media bias every year is calling elections closer than they actually are. Because if the media outlets and the pollsters they hired said any given election wasn’t close, people would check the news less and the media’s primary customers, the advertisers, would be sad about their ads reaching less eyeballs.
What is your opinion about foreign views and foreign bets on foreign elections?
Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris
#937Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a bit more than that in my mind. Political candidates at this point are telling vastly different stories about the reality we live in. The changes they want to make follow from the story they are telling. It’s not that politicians share a common set of facts and just have differences of opinion about how to best accomplish the same goal. They are telling vastly different stories. In some sense, the more compelli…
To put a finer point to it, some politicians use “alternative facts.”
As do some news organizations; For how long exactly did the news claim that Trump was talking about Nazis when he said there were "Fine people on both sides"?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-very-fine-people/
If I Google "Russian Pee Tape", Business Insider is the 3rd result with claims that the tape most likely exists. 1st being Mashable and 2nd being Buzzfeed.
https://www.businessinsider.com/christopher-steele-trump-pee...
Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris
#938Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Given people now have a choice of exactly 2 different political positions False, and ridiculous.
let me know when you catch up with the real world
Your previous comment was flagged dead by other readers. I would advise you to take that as a cue for some self-reflection.
Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris
#939Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The idea that editorial team has some kind of expertise, unavailable to general population That doesn't make sense to me - they literally spend all day every day absorbing, summarising and writing about context as their full time job. They are trained formally at assessing, evaluating and questioning facts. You can criticise the end result, but I can't see how it's reasonable to say they aren't far better positione…
> they literally spend all day every day absorbing, summarising and writing about context as their full time job. I have no idea what "absorbing" means and how it's different from any random dude spending his day sitting on a couch glued to CNN/MSNBC screen. But the fact that they are professional writers doesn't give them any special quality in the insightfulness of their writings - you can be a professional writer…
Since I can’t reply to the dead child, the concept that you need training to interpret opinions sounds like a way to force people to believe your opinion without actually convincing them. It’s an extension of the “people are stupid, they need to be told what to do” from some years back that a certain party tried to push.
Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris
#940Earlier 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…
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…
> that can be valuable, especially in politics, when one hopes they aid your messaging
But why is there a cohort so unsure of their decisions they need support from others? Is this how we want people making decisions for the country?