[HN Gopher] Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kam...
___________________________________________________________________
Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris
Author : donsupreme
Score : 131 points
Date : 2024-10-25 20:22 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| Devasta wrote:
| A cowards way of endorsing Trump, to be honest.
| coldpie wrote:
| Regardless of its impact on the election, this decision ends
| the Washington Post a serious news organization. Prior to this,
| you could reasonably trust it as a decent source, if
| questionable on tech & Amazon stories due to the ownership
| bias. After this, it's clear that Bezos purchased it with
| intent to push his own views. It's no longer a reliable source
| for news, it's just a mouthpiece for Amazon & Bezos's other
| companies.
|
| Sad to see an important newspaper die in this way. I hope the
| people that do good work there are able to find new employment.
| briandear wrote:
| The Washington Post long ago lost all credibility. Steele
| Dossier anyone? Russia collusion?
| belter wrote:
| At this point it's just tax optimization...
| dr_ wrote:
| or perhaps because Blue Origin hopes to do business with the
| Government? Just a thought. A non issue for the NYTimes but
| for the owners of WaPo and LA Times...
| coding123 wrote:
| There is definitely a quiet support among the faang owners for
| Trump.
| Molitor5901 wrote:
| I think they, like even some on the left, have reasoned that
| Trump will only be there for four years. That's it. He's gone,
| or in jail. That's four years they know who their opponent will
| be and the Democratic Party can prepare. Thinking a long game,
| it is possible the left has given up and said fine, let's get
| it over with.
| kccoder wrote:
| I haven't met a single person on the left with the mindset
| you described. I'm not saying they don't exist, I just can't
| imagine it represents more than a fraction of a percent of
| the left. It seems like more on the left believe that if
| Trump is elected, we are unlikely to see another fair
| election.
| TMWNN wrote:
| >It seems like more on the left believe that if Trump is
| elected, we are unlikely to see another fair election.
|
| Don't listen to what they say, Look at what they do.
|
| Breaking Points back in July, while discussing the Trump-
| Biden debate <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV8ULfwTneE>
| (which I _highly_ recommend watching; it 's the single best
| sum-up), pointed out two things for those who claim (to
| believe) the above:
|
| * If TrumpNaziKKK being reelected means "no more elections
| ever", shouldn't Democrats have originally chosen someone
| other than a living corpse as his opponent?
|
| * While discussing how the many plans among Democrats like
| Newsom, Whitmer, etc. (and their successors) for 2028 were
| disrupted/forced up by the potential to replace Biden
| (before Kamala's abrupt coronation), they again pointed out
| the paradox of on the one hand claiming that Trump will
| abolish elections, and on the other hand having plans for
| running to replacing Trump in 2028.
|
| Read this June _New York Times_ interview of Whitmer.
| <https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/22/magazine/gretchen-
| whitmer...> Strange, how she doesn't say (despite being
| very specific about things like the plot against her) that
| "if Trump wins, there won't be elections in 2028 and all
| non-MAGAtards will be executed by Trumptroopers". You'd
| think that would be something of sufficient urgency to
| repeat at every public opportunity. Almost as if actual
| Democratic leaders don't really believe the rhetoric they
| have so successfully foisted upon their supporters,
| including 75% of Redditors.
|
| Another example: Post-Trump/Biden debate, Rep. Jared Golden
| (D-ME) explicitly denying that Trump's reelection will
| threaten American democracy <https://www.bangordailynews.co
| m/2024/07/02/opinion/opinion-c...>.
|
| Yet another example: After discussing Golden's op-ed, Ezra
| Klein citing other Democrats who privately admit to him
| <https://x.com/Timodc/status/1811136469911711877> that a)
| they don't believe Trump is an "existential threat to
| democracy", and don't know why others say that, and b)
| that's why they aren't speaking out about Biden stepping
| down, because they believe the damage to their own careers
| from doing so is a greater threat than Trump winning
|
| Yet another example, perhaps the most prominent of all:
| Biden telling George Stephanopoulos that if he loses to
| Trump then, well, "I'll feel, as long as I gave it my all
| and I did as goodest as I know I can do, that's what this
| is about". If he was the only person who can save the
| country from Orange Hitler, would that _really_ be the
| extent of Biden 's reaction? Really?!?
| coding123 wrote:
| Zuck said Trump's fist in the air was the most badass thing
| he has ever seen. I don't think that sounds like what you are
| saying.
| taylodl wrote:
| Or maybe Big Tech has swung to the right since the Trump
| administration better aligns with their power lust
| nerdix wrote:
| They aren't playing 5D chess. They don't like the proposed
| Biden (and now Harris by extension) tax policy because it
| personally affects them.
|
| This is about billionaires wanting to avoid taxes.
| taylodl wrote:
| I think you can remove one of those A's from FAANG supporting
| Trump, and it's not Bezos' A...
| legitster wrote:
| There's an irony here, the WaPo news room has become _quite_
| political in the last decade. But the editorial board has decided
| to be apolitical.
|
| Everything is backwards.
| croes wrote:
| Did they?
|
| > An endorsement of Harris had been drafted by Post editorial
| page staffers but had yet to be published, according to two
| sources briefed on the sequence of events who spoke on the
| condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to
| speak publicly. The decision not to publish was made by The
| Post's owner -- Amazon founder Jeff Bezos -- according to the
| same sources.
|
| Seems it's just Bezos
| Molitor5901 wrote:
| 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?
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Let's do an extreme example. If one candidate were to say, "I
| will burn down the Washington Post" would you expect the
| Washington Post to be neutral? Seems fallacious.
| dekhn wrote:
| Newspapers have several different departments- a news reporting
| department, which ostensibly attempts to be neutral and fair
| (but often isn't), and an editorial department, which is
| neither neutral, nor fair. The endorsement comes from the
| editorial side.
|
| I can't answer why we would want newspapers to endorse
| presidents- except that historically, newspapers played a big
| role in shaping public opinion (now mostly replaced by social
| media).
| karmakurtisaani wrote:
| > How does it not undermine a paper's journalistic ethics to be
| neutral and fair?
|
| Where did you get this? Every news source has some bias,
| journalists, editors and owners of the media house are not some
| ideal beings. The good ones are honest about their bias.
|
| As to endorsing a candidate, it's absolutely for the paper to
| decide. Endorsing a candidate might alienate some readers, not
| endorsing others.
| coldpie wrote:
| I actually agree with you, newspapers really shouldn't be doing
| this. Our major local paper in the Twin Cities basically
| torched its reputation by endorsing wildly unqualified
| candidates for city offices (like, one guy they endorsed for
| Minneapolis city council didn't even live in Minneapolis). They
| recently decided to stop doing endorsements at all, which I
| think is the right decision.
|
| But that's not what happened here. The editors did their normal
| endorsement process, but the owner of the paper stepped in and
| personally overrode their process for this one particular
| endorsement. That's a way different story from deciding to stop
| doing endorsements.
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| As they state in the opinion piece, Washington Post actually
| has a long history of not endorsing political candidates. You
| can also frame this as the owner stepping in to undo how the
| editors have been overriding their policy.
| drewbug01 wrote:
| "Had", not "has", a long history of not endorsing
| candidates. They've been endorsing since the 80s.
|
| The proper framing is "the owners stepped in to change the
| policy, to mirror the same policies they had before the
| 80s".
|
| Whether that's right or wrong to do is a separate question.
| But framing this as though it has been editors going rogue
| or something is just not what's happening at all.
| Molitor5901 wrote:
| I saw that but I'm not sure I see the "long history". From
| Eisenhower to Carter, then from Carter to now, that's not
| much of a long history of non-endorsement. The Post is
| taking a very strong stance here and it will be interesting
| to see if this stands up in 2028. The LA Times may have
| left the door open to future endorsements, but not the
| Post.
|
| Better question: Why now? What changed for them? Was it
| declining revenue/readers, an overhaul of ethics or
| process? I can't wait to read the tell all some day about
| these decisions.
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| * 1877 to Eisenhower
| Molitor5901 wrote:
| Yes, Thank you. Interesting.
| TMWNN wrote:
| >But that's not what happened here. The editors did their
| normal endorsement process, but the owner of the paper
| stepped in and personally overrode their process for this one
| particular endorsement. That's a way different story from
| deciding to stop doing endorsements.
|
| But it's also normal and expected for a) the
| editors/editorial board (not the same thing) to disagree at
| times with the publisher/owner, and b) the editorial board's
| public face to reflect the publisher/owner's view regardless.
|
| If the editors wanted to endorse Trump but Bezos stepped in
| and decided that the paper would endorse Harris, or give no
| endorsement, the mechanism would be the same even if the
| outcome itself isn't. (What would also be different is
| endless acres of resulting news coverage praising Bezos for
| bravely stopping the _Post_ 's editorial board's
| NaziFascistKKK wrongthink, of course.)
| gatvol wrote:
| I would argue that endorsement while currently normalised,
| is not normal.
| Molitor5901 wrote:
| 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 for President.
| Those who read and value the opinions of that newspaper are
| more inclined to vote for the endorsed candidate anyways.
| krapp wrote:
| Which is worse, a newspaper expressing an opinion or a
| newspaper being forbidden from expressing an opinion?
| Molitor5901 wrote:
| Yes.
| batch12 wrote:
| Forbidden by whom? Forbidden by its owner vs forbidden by an
| external party like the government are two different
| situations.
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| I think people "need" their publications to do this in the
| sense that the publication may worry about losing readership
| for not "doing their part to support the morally correct
| candidates." But you're right. Ideally a publication would
| report the objective reality and let its readers decide what to
| make of it.
| foogazi wrote:
| The editorial page runs on opinion - I expect them to opine
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| It's a disingenuous question: newspapers endorse presidents.
| That ship has sailed and it's sailed a long time ago.
|
| The issue at hand here is what happens to objective news
| reporting when a rampant vindictive psychopath enters the
| office of the President.
| maxerickson wrote:
| 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.
| neves wrote:
| There's no neutral human being.
| wumeow wrote:
| "Democracy dies in darkness"
|
| and silence, apparently.
| good8675309 wrote:
| Which party's nominee skipped the democratic nomination
| process?
| aftbit wrote:
| Whichever way this election turns out, it will be one of the
| least democratic in my lifetime. We have the anti-democracy
| candidate on the right, and the unprimaried non-encumbant
| candidate on the left.
| wumeow wrote:
| The majority of Democrats wanted Biden to drop out and
| approve of Harris as the nominee
|
| https://apnews.com/article/poll-joe-biden-kamala-harris-
| dona...
| brandur wrote:
| The point is that Democratic voters didn't get a chance to
| have their voice heard. Conducting polling is post-hoc
| rationalization for Harris being installed by party leaders
| in unprecedentedly anti-democratic action.
| archagon wrote:
| If the presidential candidate wishes to hand the reins
| over to his vice president, why is he not allowed to do
| that?
| Maxatar wrote:
| He is allowed, it's just doesn't follow a democratic
| process.
| archagon wrote:
| But this _is_ part of the democratic process. If the
| presidential candidate died a week before election and
| the VP took his place, we would not be discussing the
| situation as undemocratic.
| wumeow wrote:
| There is no way they could have held a second primary in
| the 28 days between Biden dropping out and the DNC. Polls
| said Democrats wanted Biden to drop out, Democrats had
| already elected Harris once, and polls said Democrats
| were happy with Harris as the nominee. That's about as
| democratic as you could get given the situation.
|
| Criticizing the Democrats for being anti-democratic here
| would carry a lot more weight if the Republican nominee
| wasn't responsible for J6 and the fake electors plot.
| archagon wrote:
| Which candidate was deemed a fascist by over a dozen members
| _of his own administration_?
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/13-former-
| tru...
| noarchy wrote:
| The manner in which Harris got the nomination, deciding at
| the convention, isn't atypical and was the norm in earlier
| American history. The party decides how this goes. There is
| nothing Constitutionally-mandated about how they do it.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| Said as though with earnest care
| ErikAugust wrote:
| Does Bezos have uber-intel, and knows Trump is going to win?
| slater wrote:
| lol... maybe he does? Number of trump signs vs. harris signs
| bought on Amazon?
|
| (yes i know Jeff doesn't work there, but y'know...)
| bojan wrote:
| He is, unfortunately, a clear favourite to win. You don't have
| to have uber-intel to know that.
| w0m wrote:
| clear favorite or coin toss.
| bojan wrote:
| 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...
| maxerickson wrote:
| 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 key states (but
| within the margin of error), I wonder how you've drawn your
| conclusion.
| wormlord wrote:
| This is probably an unpopular opinion on HN. But if billionaires
| have a choice between ending democracy and ending capitalism,
| which do you expect they will pick?
|
| EDIT: I am not saying Kamala is going to "end capitalism" however
| Lina Khan's actions as chairwoman of the FTC and Joe Biden's
| historic support for unions, as small as both of these things
| are, are enough to make liberal billionaires vote for a fascist.
| That is my point.
| vermilingua wrote:
| Do you really think Harris and co are able or willing to end
| capitalism? They have nearly as much to lose as the
| billionaires.
| wormlord wrote:
| Of course not. However they are like 5% more willing to
| pursue anti-trust action and enforce regulations. Even a
| small threat like that will be resisted by the ultra wealthy.
| csallen wrote:
| Agreed, but that's just them voting for their interests,
| not voting to end democracy.
| wormlord wrote:
| The destruction of democracy is a convenient byproduct of
| their consolidation of power. Fascism in germany was
| convenient for the wealthy-- even if they weren't the
| architects of it.
| bamboozled wrote:
| In the long term was it a good thing for the wealthy
| though ?
| olliej wrote:
| You understand that anti-trust and regulations exist to
| support capitalism right? You understand that that is why
| those things exist right?
|
| Because absent those comments you don't get capitalism,
| because absent those things you don't have a free market
| wormlord wrote:
| If you think a free market is a requirement for
| capitalism then by definition sure. If you think it is
| about the distribution of ownership over capital then the
| free market doesn't matter. Many political scientists
| refer to the economic model of the USSR as "State
| Capitalism" because the state owns the means of
| production.
|
| Would you rather I use a word like "Cronyism" to specify
| private ownership of capital without free-market
| competition?
| olliej wrote:
| Yeah, that's reasonable lets go for that, so given
| statements to the effect of
|
| A) Ending democracy
|
| vs
|
| B) Ending cronyism
|
| Regardless of how effective you may think they would be
| at that goal, would you pick (A) over (B)?
| bamboozled wrote:
| So there isn't democracy as we thought there was
| anymore...it's really becoming an oligarchy.
|
| Look at musk jumping around on stage and handing out money
| for votes.
|
| It's really disturbing.
| pessimizer wrote:
| They are the billionaires. Both get massive donations from
| billionaires, and just as the last few cycles, the Democrats
| have likely more than doubled the big donor fundraising of
| the Republicans.
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/10/25/trump-v.
| ..
| hnlmorg wrote:
| Democracy is largely driven by preferences of the super rich.
| So your statement is a little like choosing between the church*
| and the pope.
|
| * I'm aware not all Christian religions are governed by the
| pope. But I hope you still get the symbolism I'm making.
| ausbah wrote:
| don't ask german companies what they were doing during
| 1933-1945
| johnea wrote:
| I'm in total agreement with you on this, including the
| unpopularity on HN.
|
| However, there is 0% chance that Kamala is going to move
| anything in the direction of ending capitalism, or even
| significantly restraining it.
|
| This is why I, at the other end of the political spectrum from
| Bozo, also do not endorse Kamala, or the modern Democratic
| party in general.
|
| When there were a dozen candidates in the last democratic
| primary, there was a lot of talk of public health care, and
| other programs to benefit the masses. Now, with Kamala as teh
| annointed candidate, the DNC has been explicit in it's one
| platform plank: Shut uo and vote for me, or you get the
| cheatoo...
| wormlord wrote:
| I edited my comment for clarity
| Sabinus wrote:
| >Shut uo and vote for me, or you get the cheatoo...
|
| That's not the DNC platform, that's the reality of US
| elections. First past the post in a race against a proto-
| fascist.
| olliej wrote:
| You're clearly not on the opposite end of the spectrum from
| Bezos, you've looked at the options and decided the best
| candidate for what you want is trump.
|
| Stop fucking acting like that isn't your decision, own it.
|
| Just say "I believe trump is the better candidate", you don't
| get to say "that's not what I'm doing" when that is what
| you're voting for. You don't get to say "the problem is the
| electoral system", you have the electoral system that exists,
| and that is what the out come of your vote is.
|
| Again, you have looked at the candidates and said, given
| these options and said "I would rather have the candidate who
| has
|
| * Said he wants to deploy the military against people who
| didn't support him
|
| * Has deliberately and explicitly in the past withheld
| federal aid from states that voted against him after natural
| disasters
|
| * Has openly and publicly received bribes
|
| * Committed fraud against the US government
|
| * Appointed unqualified friends and family members to
| positions of power
|
| * Directly interfered with the legal process to prevent
| investigation and prosecution of himself and his allies
|
| * Has raped and sexually assaulted children
|
| "
|
| Don't fucking hide, don't pretend you're claiming anything
| other than that.
|
| The best case scenario here for you is that you're a moron,
| but I'm choosing to believe you're not. In that case what
| you're saying is "Yeah, he's bad but I've decided I'm not a
| target so I'm safe from the outcome of my choices". You need
| to be honest with your friends, especially those who are in
| targeted minorities, and just say "hi, I looked at the
| options and decided that none of the things that will impact
| you, will impact me and I'm ok with that".
|
| Like seriously, just be fucking honest, people need to know
| if you're a person on their side, or the kind of person who
| will turn in Anne Frank if/when it become convenient.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| Capitalism. They own companies that are established. It's in
| their interest to prevent competition.
|
| Almost all established companies eventually support rules that
| enshrine themselves as monopolies in exchange to much tougher
| regulation.
|
| Tariffs force governments to pick and choose industries to
| receive state protection. As do subsidies.
|
| Even creating tons of paperwork for startups helps a lot.
|
| Plenty of democracies function this way. Italy and Belgium come
| to mind.
| wormlord wrote:
| The means of production are still privately owned. What you
| described is not Capitalism by strict definition, but the
| owners of capital are still at the top of the food chain in
| such a system. It's not like lack of competition somehow
| precludes private ownership.
| olliej wrote:
| Which party is ending capitalism? I'm curious, because there's
| one party saying explicitly that they intend to end the
| democratic process, one party explicitly stating the goal is
| the end of the rule of law, and one party saying they want to
| deploy the military against the supporters of the other
| political party.
|
| You could make the argument that those positions are
| fundamentally opposed to capitalism as well, but that's not as
| explicit.
|
| Regardless, only one party is threatening either of your
| alternatives, your straw man nonsense about ending capitalism
| not withstanding.
| wormlord wrote:
| Please read my edited comment for clarity.
| bojan wrote:
| Not all billionaires - Bill Gates endorsed Harris.
| daft_pink wrote:
| 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.
| moduspol wrote:
| Now we'll never know who the Washington Post's editorial board
| would have endorsed.
|
| At least Taylor Swift was able to make her recommendation, so I
| know I'm all set.
| AStonesThrow wrote:
| Ah, yes: Taylor Swift, a songwriter who's based her career on
| telling us how she made the wrong choices in her
| relationships!
| bitwize wrote:
| Taylor Swift is a billionaire from record and concert
| ticket sales alone. Between that and her endorsement of
| Harris, we're lucky to have one billionaire out there with
| legitimate wealth, unafraid to use it to effect positive
| change.
| iwontberude wrote:
| Until Kamala stops Netanyahu, Ben-Gvir, and Smotritch,
| none of us are safe. The destructive forces seen in Gaza
| will come home to us. Do we need another 9/11? Kamala
| seems to think so.
| justinclift wrote:
| I'm pretty sure the poster you're replying to was being
| sarcastic. ;)
| cflewis wrote:
| Actually we do, the reporting in WaPo itself said they had
| already put together the copy for Harris and were ready to
| run it.
|
| The newsroom basically did all they could to say it without
| saying it.
| jprete wrote:
| It's relevant on the margins. WaPo not endorsing Harris would
| be a very negative signal about Harris for fence-sitters and
| lukewarm voters - this is the paper that hated Trump so much
| they changed their motto to the apocalyptic "Democracy Dies in
| Darkness"!
| nickff wrote:
| How many fence-sitters and lukewarm voters are following
| WaPo? It's the third-most popular newspaper (in the US), but
| seems to attract people who are either very politically
| aware, or partisan.
| burkaman wrote:
| If they had announced in 2022 that the paper would no longer be
| issuing presidential endorsements because they aren't useful or
| aren't a good use of resources, I think that would be a
| reasonable and much less controversial decision. Doing it now,
| when the paper had already drafted an endorsement of Harris and
| was about to publish it, is in fact an endorsement of Trump.
|
| That's why this is news, it's not about a paper changing a
| policy, it's about one billionaire blatantly burying criticism
| of a fellow billionaire because they are having a personal
| fight (or they were having a fight and this is how they've
| resolved it).
| mandevil wrote:
| This is extremely similar to the sudden announcement of
| policies by all the major newspapers that they were not going
| to publish documents that they thought were stolen by foriegn
| intelligence services from political campaigns: it is a
| reasonable position to have, and if announced well before the
| election season started would be completely unobjectionable.
| Doing it when they announced it, however, is significantly
| changing the rules in favor of one candidate.
|
| Doing it after the board had already written up a document
| endorsing a candidate (demonstrating clearly that it was not a
| policy of anyone but the owner, who decided to be an utter
| coward at the last minute) sends a clear message that even one
| of the richest men in the world is scared of possible backlash
| against him.
| greenthrow wrote:
| It's east to think that way but if it didn't matter, Bezos
| wouldn't have squashed it.
| neves wrote:
| The problem is the the billionaire owner of the newspaper is
| censoring it, not the number of votes that will change.
| benatkin wrote:
| So they aren't going to endorse either candidate.
|
| If I didn't have context about the situation, I'd say it makes
| sense. However I think that in this flawed two-party situation,
| there is unfairness on both sides, resulting in some sort of
| balance, and it's bad that one of the richest people on earth
| could upset the balance in this way, especially at the last
| moment.
|
| Article from 2020:
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/28/editorial...
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| Yeah, I think you're missing the point a bit here: the fear of
| endorsing the "wrong" candidate, as it would lead to loss of
| profit by the owning company, is what led to the axing of the
| endorsement. Call it what you want: profit and political
| strongarming silenced a newspaper.
| CalChris wrote:
| It's just political strongarming. The Washington Post is not
| profitable.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| Bezos made the call because he was afraid of Trump
| canceling lucrative Pentagon AWS contracts. WaPo is a loss
| leader, AWS is his bread and butter.
| eigart wrote:
| It's Amazons, Blue origin, AWS profits he's fearful for,
| not WaPo.
| 73kl4453dz wrote:
| What's even the point of being a billionaire if you're still
| scared of Trump?
| h2odragon wrote:
| https://www.semafor.com/article/10/25/2024/editor-resign-sub...
| moduspol wrote:
| More interesting to me is that this is the third tech billionaire
| to take a decidedly different stance than he did previously. Musk
| is quite active, but even Zuckerberg took a much more neutral
| stance for 2024.
|
| Honestly I'm more surprised that Bezos even bothered. Does he
| really think the endorsement of The Washington Post editorial
| board is so significant that it's worth intervening? That seems
| implausible.
| TylerE wrote:
| All signs point to this being an extraordinarily tight
| election. 5 or 10k votes in the right state could swing the
| whole thing.
| moduspol wrote:
| I'd be incredibly surprised if there are even 100 people who:
|
| - Don't know who The Washington Post editorial board would
| endorse
|
| - Would change who they are voting for based on this lack of
| endorsement
|
| But I could be wrong.
| TylerE wrote:
| We're in. Situation wheee one of the candidates routinely
| criticizes us and praises our enemies, and still pulls at
| about 42%. Rationality is not in evidence.
| bamboozled wrote:
| If this race is right, then whatever I thought about
| people was wrong.
|
| Then again, I always wonder what the hell actually went
| through peoples minds in Nazi Germany.
| ThrowawayR2 wrote:
| The reason is pretty damned simple:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid
| Or, as Bertolt Brecht put it, " _Erst kommt das Fressen,
| dann kommt die Moral._ " The Democrats used to understand
| this but now they don't and that's why they are
| struggling.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| Looks like you're getting a firsthand view now.
| wumeow wrote:
| Musk is a true believer, but Zuck and Bezos probably fear
| retribution from Trump if he wins and they endorsed Harris.
| nobodyandproud wrote:
| Isn't this like Russia's oligarchy?
|
| I'm not enamored with Democrats, but Trump doesn't share
| Constitutional values and I'm very much for independent
| journalism.
|
| This is bad.
| bamboozled wrote:
| If this is true, it's beyond bad. It may be the beginning
| of the end of the free world.
| jp_nc wrote:
| Thats because of the calculation:
|
| - Endorse Harris and Trump wins, Trump will seek revenge on
| Bezos and Amazon (he tried this in the first term)
|
| - Endorse Trump and Harris wins, Harris will not act outside
| the bounds of a normal government official
|
| This is capitulation to the perceived threats of a Trump
| presidency and is very bad.
| throwaway918299 wrote:
| > - Endorse Trump and Harris wins, Harris will not act
| outside the bounds of a normal government official
|
| hahahahahaahahahahaahaha
|
| More like: Endorse Trump and Harris wins, they go after him
| like they're going after Elon Musk right now.
| staplers wrote:
| they go after him
|
| Would love to hear what horrible consequences you think
| Elon is facing..
| nomdep wrote:
| > Harris will not act outside the bounds of a normal
| government official
|
| California has even blocked SpaceX because they don't like
| the politics of Musk
| (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-10-11/la-me-
| sp...) so I would say is also naive to expect any of the two
| to not seek revenge.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| Given he was the one who made the call, what other conclusion
| would you draw?
| moduspol wrote:
| Well I mean the most generous take would be that he's come
| around about Trump and has decided that the editorial board
| making an explicit endorsement for Harris isn't in his own
| (or the country's) interests.
|
| On X they're floating the theory that he knew this would
| cause a lot of them to resign, and wanted that for other
| reasons. All we can do is speculate, I guess.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| No need to speculate. It's in black and white: last time
| Trump wanted to spite Bezos, he canceled $10Bn in AWS
| contracts. This is profit driven, plain and simple.
|
| > In a 2019 lawsuit, Amazon claimed it lost a $10 billion
| Pentagon cloud computing contract to Microsoft because
| Trump used "improper pressure ... to harm his perceived
| political enemy" Bezos.
|
| Notably, most presidential candidates aren't so petty and
| vindictive as to cancel contracts with political opponents
| for spite, but we're talking about Trump here. It would be
| best if you woke up to this reality.
| acdha wrote:
| Bezos cares because his businesses have billions of dollars in
| revenue from the federal government. Trump has already claimed
| to personally review those contracts and was reported as trying
| to kill the $10B JEDI contract:
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/10/26/trump-mattis-screw-amazo...
|
| By all accounts, he's prepared to be more authoritarian and
| less bound by the law if re-elected and he's already
| threatening journalists with rape and talking about yanking
| broadcast licenses for channels which don't kowtow to him.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Actively making the Democrats chance of winning less likely for
| your own personal interests is shortsighted.
|
| Jeff still needs customers, he needs a sane society where his
| businesses can operate from ?
|
| Sorry but the leader of the Republican Party is completely
| unhinged. Bezos might get away with a tax break or avoid some
| other legal scrutiny or even Trumps gestapo hit squad,but wow,
| you're giving up a lot for a little.
|
| Actions like this completely undermine one of the main reasons
| people believe Trump should be president. Which is that he is too
| rich to be bought. Well, look at the rich people being bought by
| their own greed and shortsightedness now.
| timeon wrote:
| > he needs a sane society where his businesses can operate from
| ?
|
| As someone from Eastern Europe I do not think that any oligarch
| really needs this.
| jmcclell wrote:
| 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.
| archagon wrote:
| A newspaper that succumbs to fear of reprisal fails completely
| in its principal duty and becomes little more than a propaganda
| rag.
| Animats wrote:
| A statement along those lines should appear in the next 10-Q
| filing, under business risks.
| ahnick wrote:
| It seems like it would be less polarizing if it was the default
| state for news and information outlets to not endorse any
| candidate ever and just remain as neutral as possible.
| neves wrote:
| First, they are never neutral.
|
| Second: this is what happens in Brazil. Everybody gets angry
| because each news outlet defends its own conservative
| candidate.
| objektif wrote:
| Good because newspapers should not be endorsing candidates.
| stogot wrote:
| This is probably the most important topic here. It reveals
| their bias/partisonship and turns the whole newspaper into an
| opinion piece
| favorited wrote:
| > turns the whole newspaper into an opinion piece
|
| The Editorial Board pens endorsements. It is literally an
| opinion piece, in the section of the paper reserved for
| opinion pieces.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Related:
|
| _The Washington Post says it will not endorse a candidate for
| president_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41948631
| archagon wrote:
| The oligarchy is almost fully installed. When our newspapers are
| unable endorse a candidate running against a fascist basket case
| because their billionaire owners don't want them to -- especially
| when the population has been conditioned to see this as normal or
| even _fair_ -- we are mere feet from tumbling over the precipice.
|
| I suppose a minor consolation is that the names of these
| individuals will be immortalized in the black books of history
| for bringing the Great Experiment to a close.
| nextworddev wrote:
| He knows something
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-10-25 23:00 UTC)