11 ms·
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 h
by lapcat 2y ago
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 of his other business interests, i.e., government contracts. It's unlikely that an independent owner with no conflict of interest would make the same decision.
- nickff 2y agoYou seem to be implying that he made a decision based on other business interests, against those of the Post, but there is no support for that in the article. Do you have a source which describes this motive? It seems like not endorsing candidates might be good for the Washington Post's business, by improving its perceived impartiality. In addition to this, the WaPo seems to have spent much of its history not endorsing candidates, and it has been doing (financially) poorly recently; perhaps this is a return to more profitable and credible roots.
- standardUser 2y agoTrump has repeatedly threatened media companies he thinks have wronged him with specific actions he's said he will take as president. Bezos has a whole business empire to worry about that goes way beyond WaPo. He doesn't need a petty president trying to wreck his bottom line for 4 years. And with a business that big, Trump has a lot of ways he could cause trouble.
- nickff 2y agoThis is definitely a potential motive, but there are many of those, and we have no reason to believe this is actually what led to Bezos’ decision.
- standardUser 2y agoYes we have a reason. Trump threatens media companies and individuals he believes have wronged him - loudly and often. If someone came to you and said they aren't going to a party, and you knew someone at that party had specifically threatened to beat them if they attend the party, do you have "no reason" to believe that the threat of a beating is a likely cause of the action (or in these cases, inaction). Especially if that person has a long history of attending that specific party?
- yks 2y agoWe have a potential future president who, putting it very charitably, espouses the ideology of "For my friends — everything, for my enemies — the law", and in the least surprising development ever, billionaires suddenly warm up to this guy. Many such cases.
- thimabi 2y agoRegardless of the motive, I do not view favorably his interference in the newspaper. If anything, he should have left editorial decisions to the staff.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- mensetmanusman 2y agoMedia companies that stitch sentences together to make an interview coherent might be misleading.
- lapcat 2y ago> there is no support for that in the article. Untrue. At the top, "KEY POINTS: 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."
- nickff 2y ago[flagged]
- lapcat 2y ago> We cannot deduce Bezos’ motives from Trump’s vengefulness. Why not? You personally can refrain from any speculation, if you wish, but it's nonetheless the most obvious explanation. Moreover, your own speculation is implausible: > perhaps this is a return to more profitable and credible roots. This last-minute backpedaling makes The Washington Post look much worse than an endorsement. The new non-endorsement "policy" wasn't announced in advance. It came only after the editors had already drafted an endorsement of Harris, and at least one editor resigned as a result. The Post now appears less credible rather than more.
- cryptonector 2y agoWhat is Trump seeking vengeance for?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ipaddr 2y agoIf the capital gains / wealth tax plan goes ahead it would cost Jeff much of his fortune. $10 billion over ten years is peanuts.
- acjohnson55 2y agoBut it would also cost his peers proportionally.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- sgnelson 2y agoWhile you may not take this as proof it affected this exact decision, it's hard to ignore it as a possible reason. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/10/amazon-wants-to-depose-president-trump-over-jedi-cloud-contract-loss.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/10/amazon-wants-to-depose-presi...
- tbrownaw 2y agoUpdates... JEDI was cancelled (article also mentions results of investigations into Amazon's claims): https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/06/pentagon-cancels-10-billion-jedi-cloud-contract.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/06/pentagon-cancels-10-billion-... The lawsuit got tossed because it didn't matter any more: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-ends-amazon-challenge-10-bln-cloud-contract-after-pentagon-cancellation-2021-07-09/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-ends-amazo... The replacement program somehow includes all three of the usual suspects, plus Oracle: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3239378/department-of-defense-announces-joint-warfighting-cloud-capability-procurement/ https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/323937...
- dmix 2y agoBezos wants to help elect someone who (his lawyers allege) killed a gov contract favourable to his own business? Or did I misread your comment.
- a123b456c 2y agoI think the implicit argument is that he wants to avoid more canceled contracts, along with other forms of retribution like personal attacks he experienced a few years earlier.
- dmix 2y agoMaybe but Bezos is not lacking money. That contract was $1B/yr contract over ten years. They make $600B+ a year. Not exactly going to tip the scales of his stock options. These billionaires usually buy money losing newspapers, or social networks, for personal reasons. If I was going to bet on it I’d very much lean on a personal motive beyond money.
- dhruvrajvanshi 2y agoFrom the article > In a 2019 lawsuit, Amazon claimed it had lost a $10 billion cloud computing contract with the Pentagon to Microsoft because Trump had used “improper pressure ... to harm his perceived political enemy” Bezos. The implication being that endorsing Harris might cause Amazon to lose out on government contracts in case Trump wins the presidency.
- nickff 2y ago[flagged]
- noncoml 2y agoIt takes a lot time to build the reputation of impartiality. To be honest only BBC comes into mind when I think about a somewhat impartial medium. What I see is a traditionally Democartic leaning newspaper, choosing "impartiality" as an excuse, because they cannot come out and support Republicans. And of course I believe that this is the choice of the owner.
- zeroonetwothree 2y agoNot saying the BBC is Fox News or CNN but I wouldn’t really call it impartial.
- thrownv7032g 2y agoWhat the BBC does really well is trash itself in reporting after scandals from within break
- noncoml 2y ago"somewhat impartial" I can not really think of any truly impartial news source. Can you? At least no in the countries I have lived in
- AYBABTME 2y agoFT does much better.
- oezi 2y agoI believe many of each countries top news papers aren't 'spinning' news. Murdock/Berlusconi-style news agencies do.
- impossiblefork 2y agoNo public impartial news source, but organisation-internal news sources that work for the reader himself, those probably exist and probably very good. A bank's analysis department can work like one for the traders for short-term things. Such organisations for the general public are possible. You'd need a group that is interested in correct judgements on some matter and willing to form an organisation to pay for investigations on it.
- smsm42 2y agoIt would take way more for WaPo to not be in a position where mentioning it in one phrase with "impartiality" wouldn't sound like an absurdist joke. They can walk this road, but so far there's absolutely no indication they want to, and Bezos twisting their arms can't be taken as such evidence.
- jasonlotito 2y agoThere is support for that reasoning in the article linked.
- JKCalhoun 2y ago> In addition to this, the WaPo seems to have spent much of its history not endorsing candidates In recent history, apparently the last time they did not endorse a candidate was the 1980's.
- fenomas 2y ago> not endorsing candidates might be good for the Washington Post's business, by improving its perceived impartiality You're at the wrong meta level - if the paper's owner is making the editorial decisions, there's no impartiality to perceive in the first place. I mean, if the question at hand was "should the editors endorse someone?" then what you're saying could stand. But that's out the window if they're being overruled by somebody without even a presumption of impartiality.
- nomel 2y agoI 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 in the minority with that perspective. If someone could explain the benefit, I’m very interested. I don’t see this is any different than the media black out that nearly all corporate employees enjoy, that exists for one reason: don’t make your opinions appear as those of the whole. Looking at the mixed responses to all of this, across the internet, that does seem to be the case, where people are confusing it all.
- fenomas 2y ago1. 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 there's no "diversity of views" to talk about, except within the confines of what he's decided to allow.
- AYBABTME 2y ago(1) might be both common and also wrong. (1) being why I dislike most of these media outlets. (2) the editorial board may be wrong and suffering groupthink, and ultimately slowly killing the paper.
- DonHopkins 2y agoIgnoring the objective fact that Trump is a fascist is not "objective", it's delusional.
- dxdenton 2y agoWhat is your definition of fascist? If it includes dictatorial control of the economy, suppression of dissenting opinions, and aggressive persecution of political opposition, Id have an easier time arguing modern progressives are fascists. Off the top of my head. * Effectively shutting down large swathes of the US economy during COVID, while allowing "essential" business to remain open. Where "essential" is arbitrarily determined based on the state governors political leanings. * Biden-Harris admin strongly encouraging (ie strong-arming) social media companies to suppress what they deemed "disinformantion". * Progressive state AGs using legal loopholes and technicalities to prosecute Trump, aka Lawfare. For example, a fraud case for overvaluing real estate properties. A fraud case with no victims that resulted in a $450 million judgment? The textbook definition of excessive fines as defined by the 8th amendment. * Progressives stated goal to pack the Supreme Court, effectively neutering an entire branch of government. Thereby, consolidating power in the remaining two branches. You believe people who don't consider Trump a fascist are delusional (close to half the electorate, if we believe the polls)? What actions or policies has Trump implemented that fit under that definition? In short, Trump being a fascist is not self-evident: It is your (and many others) strongly held opinion. One that is rarely backed by more than shallow progressive talking points.
- edm0nd 2y ago>by improving its perceived impartiality Can WaPo really be perceived as "impartial" if we know they already were going to endorse Harris?
- markvdb 2y agoThat is possible if their editorial staff honestly believe two things: - The rule of law and the republic as a process are superior to anything else. - One of the candidates does not subscribe to these sufficiently. In that case, and given the political duopoly, they could still claim to be impartial towards candidates. Their only allegiance/partiality would lie with the rule of law and the republic as a process.
- valval 2y agoYou’re thinking about this too hard. It’s a definitional question. If you have two candidates and you endorse one of them, you’re de facto partial with nothing else playing any role in the definition.
- Supermancho 2y ago> If you have two candidates and you endorse one of them, you’re de facto partial with nothing else playing any role in the definition. Endorsing on a specific issue, party, gender, or any specific quality that a large number of individuals share, is not uncommon. The specific individual is not what the endorsement must be partial to. Maybe the choice (since it's inherent to the process), but that's the distinction that was being made.
- smsm42 2y agoThinking that one of the candidates will literally destroy the country is some weird meaning of being "impartial" that I have never encountered before.
- hoppyhoppy2 2y agoThere's a difference between the opinion staff and the news staff. >The Post’s decision has roiled many on the paper’s opinions staff, which operates independently from The Post’s news staff, a long-standing tradition of American journalism designed to separate opinion writing from day-to-day news coverage. https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/10/25/washington-post-endorsement-president/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/10/25/washin...
- tempestn 2y agoThere is direct support in the article. Amazon lost a $10B contract because Trump doesn't like Bezos, which is because he owns the WP, a paper that is generally critical of Trump. By killing this endorsement, he's buying some goodwill from Trump, at the cost of alienating the bulk of WP's readers.
- raverbashing 2y agoApparently Blue Origin executives were meeting with Trump yesterday https://x.com/MerylKornfield/status/1849977796304478327 https://x.com/MerylKornfield/status/1849977796304478327
- ZeroGravitas 2y agoBezos was blackmailed by Trump ally and National Enquirer boss David Pecker a few years ago. He resisted then and it led to the most expensive divorce in history. Just some context worth adding.
- perihelions 2y ago- "You seem to be implying that he made a decision based on other business interests, against those of the Post, but there is no support for that in the article. Do you have a source which describes this motive?" There's support in that Trump personally met with Blue Origin's C-suite, on the same day the Washington Post spiked their Harris endorsement—an apparent reward to Bezos, and one that put his business interests in the spotlight. https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/10/25/2024-election-campaign-updates-harris-trump/#link-LZEQMAYGNBDCDHEWYCJWKTU6GA https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/10/25/2024-ele... ("Trump met with Bezos’s Blue Origin executives after The Post’s non-endorsement")
- Bombthecat 2y agohttps://www.thedailybeast.com/is-this-the-reason-jeff-bezos-owned-washington-post-didnt-endorse-kamala-harris-blue-origin-donald-trump/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/is-this-the-reason-jeff-bezos-...
- gonzobonzo 2y ago> Newspapers are a business and have to give their customers what they want. This is true, but it shouldn't be viewed as unproblematic. Audience capture is a huge problem, and news organizations telling their audience what they here to the point that people get siloed in their own echo chambers is one of the main reasons why things are such a mess.
- lapcat 2y agoA spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down. I'd say it's definitely possible to be in business and at the same time have business ethics, to care about the truth. I don't think it's inherently wrong to publish honest opinions, as well as funny comic strips, along with the other news, if it helps sell papers. The problems occur when business ethics, and the truth, honesty, get tossed out for the sake of profit and/or partisanship.
- AlotOfReading 2y agoNewspapers have always been like this. Here's a front page title from the Nov. 5 1888 edition of the New York World, run by Pulitzer (yes, that one): A Plot - The Republicans' desperate scheme to secure electors https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030193/1888-11-05/ed-1/seq-1/ https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030193/1888-11-0...
- culi 2y agoReally this is a lesson in why the corporate news model is doomed to fail. Upping my contributions to serious investigative journalist organizations like ProPublica
- primitivesuave 2y agoOne of ProPublica's greatest recent victories (in my opinion) was the FOIA lawsuit to secure public release of PPP loan information, along with other COVID relief loans like EIDL. Aside from the sheer scale ($1 trillion) and the rampant fraud [1], there were politicians from both sides of the aisle who took these forgivable business loans while delaying other forms of government relief. 1. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3906395 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3906395
- seizethecheese 2y agoI disagree. This is the exception rather than the rule. The more corporate, the more likely to give the people what they want.
- goosejuice 2y agoHow do you square that with social media being the source of news for many?
- seizethecheese 2y agoSocial 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.
- goosejuice 2y agoI agree. I had interpreted "what people want" as actual investigative journalism to the earlier commenters point.
- 2y ago
- dfxm12 2y agoI just hope this will finally put to bed any ridiculous mentions of "liberal media bias", or that the tech sector has some liberal bias.
- theWreckluse 2y agoI think new-tech/mass-consumer-facing tech is always going to have a liberal bias - that just plays well with the dynamics of getting new users to use your procuct. It's only once a company/organization establishes itself as a mega Corp will we see the conservative idealogy exerting it's want to sustain/conserve the accumulated power.
- fma 2y agoConservatives 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.
- gotoeleven 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- defrost 2y ago[flagged]
- DonHopkins 2y agoJD Vance wrote "I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn't be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he's America's Hitler." You are aware that JD Vance is America's Hitler's running mate, right?
- pokerface_86 2y agohttps://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/trump-said-hitler-did-some-good-things-and-wanted-generals-like-the-nazis-former-chief-of-staff-kelly-claims https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/trump-said-hitler-... maybe take a look in the fucking mirror if you want to stop being called hitler LMFAO
- rufus_foreman 2y ago[flagged]
- devindotcom 2y agoYou want them to name... readers of newspapers? Editorials, by an outlet's editorial board or otherwise, have consistently been among the most popular content in news for over a century. That includes endorsements.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rufus_foreman 2y ago>> You want them to name... readers of newspapers? Obviously not. I want them to name readers who seek out newspaper opinions. One name to start with. Do you seek out newspaper opinions?
- kasey_junk 2y agoYes. I read the opinion sections on all 4 of the major newspapers I subscribe to. Why wouldn’t I?
- rufus_foreman 2y agoReading is not seeking out.
- JadeNB 2y ago> Do you seek out newspaper opinions? I do.
- tbrownaw 2y agoOpinion articles aren't about the opinion (well, technical sw dev articles where I'm looking for the standard way to do something are, but not non-industry news stuff) unless the writer is in a position to make their opinion matter, they're about the reasons for the opinion. They're interesting if there are reasons that are interesting, or if the writer's choice of reasons is interesting.
- seydor 2y agothe result of 'business' decisions can be measured in more than just profits. News media routinely make 'bad business decisions' because they are tools of their owners. Hence why they go bankrupt often
- akira2501 2y ago> Newspapers are a business and have to give their customers what they want. Isn't that supposed to be news and not worthless institutional opinions on the presidential office? > It's unlikely that an independent owner with no conflict of interest would make the same decision. An unconflicted owner wouldn't endorse either candidate. In general, hopefully, but in this election, particularly.
- yieldcrv 2y agothat's my stance as well WaPo needed someone to make a difficult decision, conflict of interest or not, to just rip the bandaid off of their imprisonment of endorsing candidates that's over now. the end. the market is going to forget this was ever a thing.
- reverius42 2y agoHaving an editorial opinion is not the same thing as having a conflict of interest. In general readers don’t expect newspapers to contain only news, but also opinions and editorial decisions. Candidate endorsements are a typical part of what’s expected.
- 0x457 2y ago> Isn't that supposed to be news and not worthless institutional opinions on the presidential office? That's the goal of Journalism. Newspaper only goals: sell newspapers, sell ads in those newspapers (and since it we live in the age of internet - their website). > An unconflicted owner wouldn't endorse either candidate. In general, hopefully, but in this election, particularly. unconflicted owner's opinion shouldn't effect editorial staff opinions.
- heresie-dabord 2y ago> Newspapers are a business and have to give their customers what they want. If this is all we expect of journalism in a Democracy, then the current state of the "business" of "news" in the US should be satisfactory to all.
- lapcat 2y ago> If this is all we expect of journalism in a Democracy Straw man. I didn't say that. It's not a maximum, but it is a minimum. Newspapers require money to operate, and they're competing for attention in a capitalist economy. No attention. no money, no newspaper. In a democracy, you can't force-feed newspapers to the population. They voluntarily choose to read or not read. The "good news" is that many people in a democracy are interested in the hard truth. Nonetheless, it helps to package that along with softer marketing and entertainment.
- rayiner 2y agoIt's the editorial board that has the conflict of interest--between running a newspaper, and using the newspaper as a vehicle to advance their personal political ideologies. I grew up in the D.C. area reading WaPo. It went from being a milquetoast paper to being a vehicle for political radicals. And that's been a disaster for the business. The paper was on pace to lose $100 million last year, and has lost 500,000 subscribers since 2020: https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-lose-100-million-2023-one-decade-after-jeff-bezos-bought-paper-report https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-lose-100-milli.... WaPo's business is catering to D.C. professionals. The nature of the country's electoral politics is that roughly half of those are going to be batting for each side. It's a good business decision not to seem like you're rooting for one side or the other.
- waihtis 2y agoCalling it a "bad business decision" just reveals your political preference. People who get their opinions from journalists is a constantly shrinking crowd. Today I mostly see only people of age 50+ who still actively think journalists can provide an accurate worldview for them.
- lapcat 2y ago> Calling it a "bad business decision" just reveals your political preference. It absolutely does not. You have no idea what my political preferences are, and I'm quite confident that your guesses are wrong.
- bjourne 2y ago> 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 customer is predominantly the advertiser. Newspapers publish opinions to have something to fill the empty space surrounding the advertisements.
- dingaling 2y agoIndeed, I'd assumed paper use opinion columns because they're cheaper than news.
- AYBABTME 2y agoI don't think it's a bad business decision. I stopped reading the WaPo when I got sick of its partial treatment of everything. And I'm not talking about supporting one candidate or another, I'm talking about sticking to facts and not ideological positions. This decision by Bezos is a shot across the bow in the right direction, in my opinion. Clear eyed news are needed and aside from FT.com (which these days is also trending toward alarmism) there's precious little left out there. I don't care about a journos' opinion, I really don't. I just want them to report about facts on the ground and not pick sound pieces for clickbaits.
- reverius42 2y agoI think you’re reacting to alarmism as though it’s unwarranted. Have you considered it might actually be warranted?
- AYBABTME 2y agoI did, and I feel like only long and cold headed analysis brought me out of it. It's easier to believe that alarmism is warranted than to think it isn't. The entire public sphere is freaking out about everything all the time, and catching sound bites, taking things out of context, lacking empathy for opposing viewpoints and clearheadedness. Alarmism these days is the default state. WaPo is participating in this hysteria campaign. Letting the hysteria come into your brain unchecked is not good, but that's the default situation for most people and it leads to alarmism. I think things are much more boring than people make them out to be, and that it's much harder to keep this perspective. You can't make good decisions when your brain is conditioned to believe in a reality and near-future that is much worse looking than what the actual current reality and near-future looks like. All this to say, I used to give into this alarmism. Post-extrication from this disposition, I try to be more self-aware and reticent to give in. It starts by seeking more facts and primary sources, or consuming summarized content from entities that are incentivized to, and with a culture of, sticking to the facts.
- lapcat 2y ago> I just want them to report about facts on the ground and not pick sound pieces for clickbaits. There's no evidence of an overall change in the newspaper's direction. Bezos did not fire all of the opinion editors, for example. Neither did Bezos announce this "policy" in advance. It was a last-minute retraction after the editors had already drafted an endorsement.
- supergirl 2y agothat’s some mental gymnastics. so newspapers are free to publish opinions, it is in their business interest………………(but only if the opinion is the one I want otherwise it is not good business)
- lapcat 2y ago> so newspapers are free to publish opinions That's a strange way of putting it. Newspapers are free to publish anything, by the first amendment to the Constitution. > but only if the opinion is the one I want otherwise it is not good business I didn't say that. I said that people want to read opinions. Sometimes they enjoy reading opinions that they disagree with, and arguing with those opinions.
- dazc 2y ago'...sacrificing it and losing readers for the sake of his other business interests, i.e., government contracts.' Sound point unless you figure Bezos is accepting government may be about to change?
- 0x457 2y agoWaPo takes a hit if they don't endorse, but that's not Bezos's core business. If they endorse Kamala and Trump wins - other businesses of Bezos would suffer. Basically it's safer to not endorse anyone.
- vakkermans 2y ago> Newspapers are a business and have to give their customers what they want. I really want to challenge this idea. Businesses can have missions quite distinct from what the majority of their prospective customers would want. If I had practically unlimited money I wouldn't ever think of funding a news organisation and then only have it produce content that customers wanted. I would have a purpose for it, stemming from my own ethics. I think it quite naive to consider Bezos has not done the same and that this decision is simply in line with his personal political interests. Neoliberalism is a really poor substitute for personal morality and accountability.
- lapcat 2y ago> Businesses can have missions quite distinct from what the majority of their prospective customers would want. Failing businesses. > I would have a purpose for it, stemming from my own ethics. I never said that business is inherently in conflict with ethics, and I, as an entrepreneur myself, believe that ethics are necessary for business: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41951447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41951447 > I think it quite naive to consider Bezos has not done the same and that this decision is simply in line with his personal political interests. I claimed that his decision is simply in line with his personal interests. Whether those are financial interests or political interests is difficult to determine. Nonetheless, the decision was bad for The Washington Post. Compare to Twitter/X: Elon Musk is indisputably using the social network he acquired for his personal political interests, and that has indisputably been bad for the business, driven away users and advertisers, and his creditors have vastly downgraded the value of the investment. > Neoliberalism is a really poor substitute for personal morality and accountability. This seems like a nonsequitur. How is "Neoliberalism" relevant? Is that what you believe I proposed? If so, you're wrong.
- vakkermans 2y agoI quoted the bit I wanted to react to, namely the idea that businesses have to give customers what they want. I read that as strongly influenced by an economically driven - rather than morally driven - world view. Leaving money on the table does not necessarily mean a failing business, except for some extreme definition of 'failing'. I meant to argue against your first assertion, not your second; I'm not concerned with whether it's a bad financial decision or not.
- graemep 2y ago> 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 by media (and sometimes more) conglomerates with many interests around the world.
- j_maffe 2y ago> He gets to decide what its interests are. No he doesn't. He can choose to do with it whatever he may like. But whether it's in its interest or not is a property purely derived from the current state of the journal and the market. Whether he likes it or not. And, yes, the issue stems from business ownership of a so-called "independent" news outlet which has clear conflict of interest. Which is something that we should not accept and continue fighting against, whether it's usual or not.
- lurking15 2y ago> so-called "independent" news outlet which has clear conflict of interest If a majority of staff at a news outlet are liberal/progressive isn't that clearly a bias and hard to call independent? I just notice that people tend to only call out institutional bias in one direction
- big_whack 2y agoIndependence from ownership isn't really a left/right principle. The Washington Post has their set of guiding principles online - I think from those it's pretty clear why there is discontent. https://www.washingtonpost.com/about-the-post https://www.washingtonpost.com/about-the-post
- j_maffe 2y agoIndependent doesn't mean unopinionated. As long as they're transparent about a set of ideals and principles that they follow through, being opinionated is perfectly fine for journalism.
- silexia 2y agoNewspapers are supposed to be about news, you can't trust someone who tries to tell you how to think about things. I just want news and I want to figure out how to think about it myself.
- Elizabeth0147 2y ago[dead]
- michaelcampbell 2y agoCompanies (mainly media based) have been moving from giving the customers what the customers want, to giving the customers what the company wants. This is just another one of those.