991–1000 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you square that with social media being the source of news for many?
Social media is lambasted for presenting people with the most engaging information rather than what experts think they need to know, and social media companies are largely just maximizing revenue. I think it squares nicely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To be honest only BBC comes into mind when I think about a somewhat impartial medium. The BBC is pro-UK government, who fund them. To me only Reuters (disclaimer: I once worked there) and AP come to mind when I think impartial news. What do others think? https://www.purevpn.com/blog/unbiased-news-sources/ The Guardian is a great source of news, and it has a curageous team of reporters, but even it has its biases. I…
> The BBC is pro-UK government, who fund them. You are not British, are you :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a statement of the values of the newspaper. This is what we stand for, and we are endorsing this person because of those values. It tells people about the paper and about the candidate being endorsed. The issue here is that Trump is a threat to our democratic system of government. It’s not the time to be changing policies and refusing to endorse. It’s a time for taking a stand.
Clearly the values of the newspaper (as determined by the owner) aren’t what the employees, or many of the readers, thought they were.
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 would extend that to all businesses. For the sake of the business & their customers it's usually best to keep politics out of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not automatically unethical for a journalist to advocate for something. I guess if they entirely stopped publishing self authored editorials it might be "neutral" to not publish a particular one. But that isn't what is happening.
The main thing for journalists is to strictly separate news reporting from editorial opinion pieces and clearly mark which is which.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 wh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's in fact a very powerful endorsement of Trump, IMHO: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41951373
If it's so powerful, why is Bezos also apparently now pushing for a lot of changes in the actual writing and ordered conservative writers added to the op-ed board? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/25/business/media/washington... and started defending it publicly: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/10/28/jeff-bezo...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatever his reason, this isn't a first amendment issue because it's a private entity constraining its own speech, not the government.
The first amendment issue is that he is doing it because of fear that the government will retaliate against his other companies. A lot of folks are exhorting him to resist in order to protect the norm, but it his true that _his_ choice is caused by first amendment violations, not causing them.
If Bezos chose to constrain his own speech due to some perceived threat to his companies from a possible Trump administration, that's still a private decision (and an exercise of his first amendment right to non-expresssion).
To be a first amendment violation, the government has to constrain speech (via force or threat).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clear favourite. It might be a toin coss still at this moment, but the odds are getting ever-so-slightly worse for Kamala for many days in a row now. So it's about the trend. On top of that, the growth of the blue firewall in PA is losing steam too early...
What data brings you to this conclusion? PA firewall is slowing, but it’s not terrible.