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

941–950 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#941

Post by tekknik »

Glyptodon wrote: post #197
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?

I think there's arguments either way, but I also think as a certain point there is an obligation to point out that Trump is basically an anti American who probably takes more notice of a roll of toilet paper than the constitution. I'd argue that maybe it would behoove an institution of trust to make an endorsement only rarely, but it's also long been part of the means of public discourse for papers to put out opinion…

How is this not dead?

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#942

Post by webninja »

bojan wrote: post #752
maxerickson wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my corner of rural Michigan, the relative sentiment shift appears to be massively in favor of Harris. I don't really trust my opinion, and I have a pretty limited perspective on what people in other areas think, but between 2020 and now, there is much increased support for Harris compared to Biden, and much more muted support for Trump 2024 compared to Trump 2020. With the polling mildly in favor of Harris in ke…

By following polls, and the way they are trending. And the odds seem to be moving daily towards Trump, and while we're still in coin toss territory, if this trend continues for the next 10 days, it's really looking bad for Harris, despite the shift in your area. If I'm wrong, please let me know, as I'd really like to be proven wrong here.

I don’t think you’re wrong. I think you’re looking at the data and that’s what the data is telling you. Some would present alternative data or say “we’ll see during the election.” But I think the real pushback is due to possible knowledge of the future giving people the burden of temporary anxiety, even if it’s only 9 days away.

There are other people who are weary from these elections having gone on for so long now and were long ready for it to all be over months ago.

The whole reason for elections and democracy is for the administration and party in power to have a peaceful decent from power. Because without them, in history the only prior means were to overtake the administration by physical force and peaceful descents from power were rare and uncommon.

That had the negative ramifications of the power being concentrated by people with the strongest weapons, not the people with the best leadership, governance, and the most care towards it’s own populace, citizens, and constituency.

If I’ve answers this in any non-neutral or biased way, please let me know as I’m NPA —- the 3rd largest political affiliation.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#944

Post by lurking15 »

j_maffe wrote: post #848
lurking15 wrote: post #833

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so-called "independent" news outlet which has clear conflict of interest If a majority of staff at a news outlet are liberal/progressive isn't that clearly a bias and hard to call independent? I just notice that people tend to only call out institutional bias in one direction

Independent doesn't mean unopinionated. As long as they're transparent about a set of ideals and principles that they follow through, being opinionated is perfectly fine for journalism.

But "opinion journalism" isn't news, it's editorializing. So you accept news that is effectively propaganda as long as it's "independent" from the outlet ownership?

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#945

Post by taylodl »

danans wrote: post #215
taylodl wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you can remove one of those A's from FAANG supporting Trump, and it's not Bezos' A...

Maybe not "supporting", but the other A apparently isn't above currying favor with him: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-apple-ceo-cook-c...

Trump says...I'm sorry, but I don't believe a damned thing Trump says. This particular claim doesn't pass the sniff test. why would Tim Cook call Donald Trump? Donald Trump is a private citizen with no power to do anything. Donald Trump is an absolute idiot when it comes to anything involving business, except to con and scam people. So no, there's no reason to believe this happened.

Now, if Americans are stupid enough to make Trump president again - well, that's a different scenario because Trump would be president. Then Tim Cook has incentive to try to convince Trump to not thoroughly wreck and destroy the US economy. Tim Cook can wait until after the election to see if he has to cross that bridge.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#946

Post by j_maffe »

lurking15 wrote: post #944
j_maffe wrote: post #848

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Independent doesn't mean unopinionated. As long as they're transparent about a set of ideals and principles that they follow through, being opinionated is perfectly fine for journalism.

But "opinion journalism" isn't news, it's editorializing. So you accept news that is effectively propaganda as long as it's "independent" from the outlet ownership?

I don't accept anything that isn't properly cited and sufficient evidence is provided from reliable sources. Neutral news offerings (such as AP or Reuters) are of course a better source of news. It is however useful to subscribe to journals that has some form of basic agreement on fundamental values. For example, it'd be useless for me to follow a news outlet that downplays the importance of democracy.

This is not propaganda, as opinionated journalism's objective is still to transparently cover issues it cares about without distortion or attempt at manipulation, which is very different from propaganda.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#947

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

webninja wrote: post #936
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 countri…

Not sure if you've been following betting action on the US election, but it had closely followed polling up until a few weeks ago, then made a sudden and huge divergence away from polling to "predict" a Trump win.

My best guess is that this "betting action" has nothing to do with people trying to make money by betting on who they think will win - given the scale of divergence from polling results, and the speed at which that happened, this seems more like election interference - people spending money trying to influence the outcome.

I'd have to guess that in this election it's American citizens who see it more realistically. From afar it might seem obvious that Trump will lose (spouting Nazi rhetoric, killing Roe vs Wade, etc), and he'll obviously lose the popular vote, but you need to be very finely attuned to what's going on in the swing states - especially at ground level - to understand who's going to be more successful getting out the vote, etc. If expert US pollsters like Nate Silver can't get it right, then someone the other side of the world if unlikely to either. Anyways, as said, I don't think this money really is betting action - I expect it's just election interference.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#948

Post by worik »

dxdenton wrote: post #880
DonHopkins wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the objective fact that Trump is a fascist is not "objective", it's delusional.

What is your definition of fascist? If it includes dictatorial control of the economy, suppression of dissenting opinions, and aggressive persecution of political opposition, Id have an easier time arguing modern progressives are fascists. Off the top of my head. * Effectively shutting down large swathes of the US economy during COVID, while allowing "essential" business to remain open. Where "essential" is arbitrari…

> A fraud case with no victims

Really?

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#949

Post by dxdenton »

worik wrote: post #948
dxdenton wrote: post #880

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your definition of fascist? If it includes dictatorial control of the economy, suppression of dissenting opinions, and aggressive persecution of political opposition, Id have an easier time arguing modern progressives are fascists. Off the top of my head. * Effectively shutting down large swathes of the US economy during COVID, while allowing "essential" business to remain open. Where "essential" is arbitrari…

> A fraud case with no victims Really?

Can you offer a substantial rebuttal? Or are you in the same camp as the OP whose opinions are axioms that are above questioning or debate?

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#950

Post by worik »

dxdenton wrote: post #949
worik wrote: post #948

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A fraud case with no victims Really?

Can you offer a substantial rebuttal? Or are you in the same camp as the OP whose opinions are axioms that are above questioning or debate?

I think the duty of evidence is on the accuser

Fraud is not a victimless crime

Post reply on HN