10 ms·

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. D

• standardUser 2y ago
  Trump 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 ago
    This 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 ago
      Yes 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 ago
      We 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 ago
      Regardless 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 ago
    Media 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 ago
      What is Trump seeking vengeance for?
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  • ipaddr 2y ago
    If 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 ago
      But it would also cost his peers proportionally.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• sgnelson 2y ago
  While 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 ago
    Updates... 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 ago
    Bezos 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 ago
      I 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 ago
        Maybe 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 ago
  From 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 ago
  It 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 ago
    Not saying the BBC is Fox News or CNN but I wouldn’t really call it impartial.
    • thrownv7032g 2y ago
      What 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 ago
        FT does much better.
      • oezi 2y ago
        I believe many of each countries top news papers aren't 'spinning' news. Murdock/Berlusconi-style news agencies do.
      • impossiblefork 2y ago
        No 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 ago
  It 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 ago
  There 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 ago
    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 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 ago
      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 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 ago
  Ignoring the objective fact that Trump is a fascist is not "objective", it's delusional.
  • dxdenton 2y ago
    What 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.
    • worik 2y ago
      > A fraud case with no victims Really?
      • dxdenton 2y ago
        Can you offer a substantial rebuttal? Or are you in the same camp as the OP whose opinions are axioms that are above questioning or debate?
        • 2y ago
• 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 ago
    That 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 ago
      You’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 ago
      Thinking 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 ago
    There'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 ago
  There 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 ago
  Apparently Blue Origin executives were meeting with Trump yesterday https://x.com/MerylKornfield/status/1849977796304478327 https://x.com/MerylKornfield/status/1849977796304478327
• ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  Bezos 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 ago
  https://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-...