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

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#961

Post by tekknik »

tightbookkeeper wrote: post #958
tekknik wrote: post #940

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Im sorry you didn’t catch the underlying meaning of my statement. Anybody unable to form an opinion on their own I don’t wish they have the ability to vote.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#963

Post by Glyptodon »

warner25 wrote: post #606
lostdog wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The endorsement lets them write why they support the candidate. Laying out the reasons is what could be convincing, and is what's also being blocked here.

I think the intuition of the parent comment is right, but you also make a fair point[1]. I just wonder if you genuinely believe that any prospective Trump voter could be convinced by any argument to vote for Harris at this point. I mean after all the things that have already been written and said by so many, even by Trump himself, and have failed to convince ~47% of Americans that he's unfit to be the president. Hone…

I don't really expect that there are Trump voters who could be convinced to vote for Harris by the op-ed, but I do think there could be voters who may have been on the verge of reconsidering Trump who may hear something like this story (of Bezos stopping an endorsement) as something that makes them identify their moment of reconsideration as a mistake because they think Bezo's behavior should be perceived as supporting the concept that Democrats and other anti-Trump parties are the ones off-kilter.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#964

Post by Glyptodon »

daft_pink wrote: post #34

Is anyone really changing their mind based on some newspaper endorsement? I’m pretty sure everyone knows who they’re gonna vote for at this point.

I think there are some number of people who are trying to decide what's "true" or "real" and while I don't think they'd have even noticed a WaPo editorial, I do think they might hear that Bezos prevented an endorsement and see it as indicative that the endorsement of Harris was somehow dishonest and tally it as a stone on Trump's side of the "reality scale."

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#966

Post by taylodl »

danans wrote: post #959
taylodl wrote: post #945

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why should they be forced to deal with Trump's nonsense? That's giving Trump agency over you and giving him the attention he craves. The best way to deal with a narcissist like Trump is to ignore him. Only an idiot believes Trump's incessant lies and neither I, nor presumably Tim Cook, gives a rat's ass what idiots think of us.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#967

Post by danans »

taylodl wrote: post #966
danans wrote: post #959

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Why should they be forced to deal with Trump's nonsense? That's giving Trump agency over you and giving him the attention he craves. The best way to deal with a narcissist like Trump is to ignore him. Only an idiot believes Trump's incessant lies and neither I, nor presumably Tim Cook, gives a rat's ass what idiots think of us.

> The best way to deal with a narcissist like Trump is to ignore him.

Not if you want something from the narcissist. Instead you chuff the narcissist up. It's gross, but we've seen them all do it reactively after he was elected in 2016, so why not be proactive this time? None of them (Big tech) are going to lose customers over it, so there's no risk.

> Only an idiot believes Trump's incessant lies and neither I, nor presumably Tim Cook, gives a rat's ass what idiots think of us.

Whatever his cognitive abilities, if elected president, he will have nearly absolute power over foreign trade policy. He could try to use it to exert leverage over the EU to weaken their antitrust enforcement.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#968

Post by nomel »

fenomas wrote: post #657
nomel wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one could claim that the editorial department was trying to make a decision that could/would be interpreted as a company stance, rather than a department stance, to the average person. Sure, you could blame the average person. I also can’t comprehend the benefit of a biased editorial department, from a business or quality perspective. A diverse set of views is always more interesting to read, but I’m surely i…

1. Publishing an editorial endorsing a candidate is extremely common, both for US papers generally and for this paper specifically. The reasons for that are various but they have nothing to do with what we're discussing here. 2. Moreover, that whole question is irrelevant when the editors aren't even making the decision. If Bezos is willing to override them, then effectively he is the paper's editorial board - so the…

Could you explain the benefits of having a biased, rather than balanced, editorial department?

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#969

Post by Ajedi32 »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #677
Molitor5901 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another point that just occurred to me: Who is the endorsement supposed to influence? I think in America at least, the national media has become so hyper partisan in the eyes of its readers, that an endorsement of a newspaper is really just preaching to the crowd. What difference does that endorsement really make? At the national level, I don't think it really makes a difference if a newspaper endorses a candidate fo…

I think it's like wearing a jersey for your favorite sport franchise. It's not meant to influence anyone outside the group but reinforce group cohesion.

Which seems like an even stronger reason for newspapers (or other purportedly unbiased organizations) to not to endorse candidates, no? It seems like it would create (or reinforce) an internal culture inclined to favor one particular side.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#970

Post by throwaway48476 »

webninja wrote: post #934
throwaway48476 wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Vance is an anti monopolist and mentions it in every interview.
Post reply on HN