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

971–980 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#971

Post by Molitor5901 »

kcplate wrote: post #293
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…

It influences no one, but it sends a pretty loud message to the Democratic party that (now two, LATimes did same thing) normally reliable media orgs have lost confidence in the democrat party’s ability to bring forth a competitive candidate against Donald Trump.

That's a really good point I had not considered. It's signaling, I see that. To be withheld when it always been given would seem to be to be a very loud signal. This will be fascinating to examine after the election in a journalism class. I see a PhD thesis on withholding endorsements in the future..

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#972

Post by throwaway48476 »

Ajedi32 wrote: post #969
throwaway48476 wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A lot of newspapers are/were called the X_location Democrat or the like because historically the newspaper was an arm of the political party. Not as many exist now with the decline of news publishing.

Incomplete list. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Democratic_newspape...

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#973

Post by Molitor5901 »

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…

If you'll pardon me, as a devil's advocate, it could go either way. They have a value but it's difficult to know to whom they owe that value to, the party, the corporations, voters, readers etc. The other is that.. they have value in the act of playback.

One political faction/side knows a publication is favored by one of the two parties. It can use that fact to feed it false information, or truthful, and watch to see how it gets reported, and the reaction of that electorate.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#974

Post by Ajedi32 »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #972
Ajedi32 wrote: post #969

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A lot of newspapers are/were called the X_location Democrat or the like because historically the newspaper was an arm of the political party. Not as many exist now with the decline of news publishing. Incomplete list. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Democratic_newspape...

Interesting. So rather than have newspapers that pretend to be neutral, we could instead have explicitly Republican newspapers and explicitly Democratic newspapers? I guess things have sort of been trending in that direction the last few years anyway...

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#975

Post by jmcclell »

wbl wrote: post #153
jmcclell wrote: post #62

It makes sense in so much as "it's a risk to our business to endorse Harris because of the risk of falling afoul of Trump's vindictive nature should he win." From a fiduciary standpoint, I agree with that assessment. From the standpoint of a citizen, I find the implication alarming. I do believe that this is the reasoning behind the decision, but it is certainly speculation on my part.

If you own a paper money isn't the point. Just like in a hospital or a law firm or even a bank. You do the right thing because society trusts you and making money comes from that. Do the wrong thing, and your business will vanish.

The problem extends beyond WaPo, though. He is connected with other companies that rely on government contracts or are otherwise subject to current and/or future government regulation, e.g., Amazon, Blue Origin, etc. WaPo may be the one he's willing to risk in this instance?

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#976

Post by jmcclell »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #323
bitwize wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why we need to repeal and replace the First Amendment with an amendment that guarantees freedom of expression within the bounds of civilized discourse (e.g., open Nazism=crime) and severely punishes government officials who use their power to stifle such expression. The First Amendment, as written, protects speech that oughtn't be protected, and fails to protect speech that ought to be protected, hence the cu…

We need to do no such thing . All speech, even speech which is vile, must be equally protected under the law or else the protections are meaningless. In your preferred policy regime, it's entirely too easy for the people in charge of government to declare "this is outside the bounds of civilized discourse" about perfectly legitimate speech which they don't like. History has shown us, time and time and time again, tha…

I generally align with your viewpoint here. I do think what we need are better ways to regulate the way free speech flows in a constantly online world. That's hand wavy and non-specific, I know, but one example might be some regulation around algorithmic outcomes re: echo chambers. Though, I did recently come across a paper that strongly suggested such regulation was futile. In any case, for the betterment of society, we need some creative solution to combat the fact that technology has given us the means for propaganda to spread effortlessly and without consequence for those behind the grift.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#977

Post by tightbookkeeper »

tekknik wrote: post #961
tightbookkeeper wrote: post #958

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you advocating for aristocracy? Based?

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#979

Post by Slava_Propanei »

janalsncm wrote: post #744
mensetmanusman wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politics is simply preference. The shape of the earth is not.

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…

[dead]

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#980

Post by rozap »

addandsubtract wrote: post #814
rozap wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it opens to them up to retribution from Trump if he wins, which is his entire method of operating. From a game theory perspective it doesn't make sense for them to do an endorsement when a mob boss type character is about to get elected.

"Lets not oppose nazis in case they gain power again." You're morally and humanly bankrupt if you believe and act this way.

Yes exactly, we're talking about Jeff Bezos here.
Post reply on HN