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

951–960 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#951

Post by anon291 »

culi wrote: post #413
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…

Really this is a lesson in why the corporate news model is doomed to fail. Upping my contributions to serious investigative journalist organizations like ProPublica

Pro publica doesn't endorse

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#952

Post by anon291 »

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

That's why fifty percent of the country disagrees with you! When will the beam come out of the eye?

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#953

Post by anon291 »

defrost wrote: post #759
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.

Many express fondness for Reagan era Republicans and lament their absence. There's support for Liz Cheney, a former chair of the House Republican Conference, coming out against Trump et al. Are you sure "anti-Republican" is what you're seeing and not just calling out the MAGA faction for their behaviour?

The maga faction is... Based on polls and 2020s results... Bigger than the 'real' republican party you're supposing exists

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#954

Post by anon291 »

fma wrote: post #526
dfxm12 wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just hope this will finally put to bed any ridiculous mentions of "liberal media bias", or that the tech sector has some liberal bias.

Conservatives keep moving the goal post. I see a less criticism of conservatives due to the fear of being labeled as bias. i.e. the coverage of Biden's cognitive decline vs Trump's cognitive decline.

Trump just spoke with Rogan for three hours unscripted and showed none of the obvious cognitive decline that Joe did.

That's fine... For some, age does not really slow them down. For others it does. People just need to be real about it.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#955

Post by anon291 »

lapcat wrote: post #838
graemep wrote: post #825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Jeff Bezos, has a conflict of interest He is the outright (ultimate, through a holding company) owner of The Washington Post. Therefore there is no conflict of interest. He gets to decide what its interests are. I think it is worth asking whether it is in the public interest to allow people with other extensive business interests to own influential media businesses, but that is usual these days. Most media is owned…

This is unhelpfully pedantic. My point is that Bezos would likely make a different decision for The Washington Post if he wasn't concerned about retaliation against his other business interests, and in fact he allowed the paper to make political endorsements in the past.

Jokes on bezos though because he's never going to be able to redeem himself to the GOP after the banning of parler.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#956

Post by defrost »

kernal wrote: post #912
defrost wrote: post #759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many express fondness for Reagan era Republicans and lament their absence. There's support for Liz Cheney, a former chair of the House Republican Conference, coming out against Trump et al. Are you sure "anti-Republican" is what you're seeing and not just calling out the MAGA faction for their behaviour?

The fact the you would bring up Liz Cheney pretty much invalidates any opinion you might have of the Republican Party. There’s a reason that disgusting and vile thing is now “teaching” at a radical left wing training school.

I heard she speaks of the enemy within, wants Hitler's Generals on staff and is keen to remove the licences from media outlets that talk about that.

At least you and I can agree how vile and disgusting that behaviour is.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#957

Post by defrost »

anon291 wrote: post #953
defrost wrote: post #759

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many express fondness for Reagan era Republicans and lament their absence. There's support for Liz Cheney, a former chair of the House Republican Conference, coming out against Trump et al. Are you sure "anti-Republican" is what you're seeing and not just calling out the MAGA faction for their behaviour?

The maga faction is... Based on polls and 2020s results... Bigger than the 'real' republican party you're supposing exists

Thank you for supporting my point.

    the top 100 political articles from WaPo and the NYT from this year ...
are not "anti Republican", they are "anti MAGA", just as many non MAGA Republicans also are.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#958

Post by tightbookkeeper »

tekknik wrote: post #940
tightbookkeeper wrote: post #929

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I agree with the sentiment, this is just how people work. We aren’t constructing frameworks from first principles, we hear ideas from peers and filter them through our experience. Journalists just insert themselves in that process, using local ethics and archetypes against their audience.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#959

Post by danans »

taylodl wrote: post #945
danans wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 enoug…

> This particular claim doesn't pass the sniff test. why would Tim Cook call Donald Trump?

> So no, there's no reason to believe this happened.

Why hasn't he (or any of the other Big tech CEOs who Trump has claimed conversations with) denied it? They just have to put out a statement saying "the conversation never happened". Their silence is deafening.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#960

Post by anon291 »

defrost wrote: post #957
anon291 wrote: post #953

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The maga faction is... Based on polls and 2020s results... Bigger than the 'real' republican party you're supposing exists

Thank you for supporting my point. the top 100 political articles from WaPo and the NYT from this year ... are not "anti Republican", they are "anti MAGA", just as many non MAGA Republicans also are.

That's simply not likely. 75 million voters went for Trump in 2020. That's almost half the voters. It's unlikely that there's 75 million voters out there that are not Democrats or Trump supporters. If that is the case, Bidens support should either have been higher or there should have been at least that many blank ballots, or alternatively, Bidens 80 million votes is half Democrats and half anti Trump Republicans, in which case, the Democratic party, which historically is the larger party, is all but dead
Post reply on HN