4 ms·

I'm really not sure of this. The argument I've mostly seen is that the endorsement was always mostly meaningless. If anything, this is a "coverup worse than the

I'm really not sure of this. The argument I've mostly seen is that the endorsement was always mostly meaningless. If anything, this is a "coverup worse than the crime" situation. Killing the endorsement is much more notable than just letting it happen because it's what everyone was worried about when Bezos bought the paper - that he'd inject his own consideration into it, something he said he wouldn't do. If some billionaire owned the NY Post and banned them from endorsing Trump, that would absolutely be a story as well. I don't think anyone thinks it's not clear who the writers at the NY Post or the Washington Post generally want to win. That makes this whole situation so much more stupid on Bezos's part.

wannacboatmovie 2y ago
> Killing the endorsement is much more notable than just letting it happen It's only notable because the staff was upset and leaked the backstory in retaliation. A newspaper is a business; it's not the town square. Imagine working for a company and going public every time your boss did something you disagreed with.
- noirbot 2y ago
  That's ignoring that he's running a business that's literally to report on things that important people like him do. An engineer at Amazon's job isn't to write about Amazon's business dealings to the public. The opinion and editorial board of a newspaper is literally there to write about what people like Bezos do. It would have been notable even if they hadn't been public about it, just because the Post has endorsed every presidential race for decades. Eventually someone would have noticed and asked about it, and it just would have come out then. You may as well just say he could silently kill the Kindle line and it wouldn't be a controversy/reported on. He can literally tell Amazon employees to stop making them, but it doesn't mean it's not weird and notable that he's doing it.
  - dmix 2y ago
    Regardless the more likely explanation is that this is a news story regardless of internal leaking. People will notice WaPo didn’t endorse anyone and someone’s going to say something.
- noirbot 2y ago
  Also, do you seriously think any more right wing paper wouldn't have leaked it if their owner had prevented them from endorsing? That if their owner had come in saying he preferred Harris and they couldn't endorse Trump that they'd have just gone home like "Hey, free market, he's rich, that's how it works?" Half of major right wing media is run by people whose whole identity is "a major paper said I couldn't write what I wanted so I quit and wrote what I wanted anyway". Getting "canceled" by a major newspaper is pretty much the #1 way to end up rich on Substack these days. They go around parading how much they're "free speech advocates" because they "won't let the rich elites decide what I can write" but suddenly when the rich elites are suppressing an endorsement of a more left candidate it's "it's bad faith and retaliatory to speak out about the rich deciding what you can publish".
cryptonector 2y ago
> If some billionaire owned the NY Post A billionaire does

wannacboatmovie 2y ago

> Killing the endorsement is much more notable than just letting it happen It's only notable because the staff was upset and leaked the backstory in retaliation. A newspaper is a business; it's not the town square. Imagine working for a company and going public every time your boss did something you disagreed with.

noirbot 2y ago
That's ignoring that he's running a business that's literally to report on things that important people like him do. An engineer at Amazon's job isn't to write about Amazon's business dealings to the public. The opinion and editorial board of a newspaper is literally there to write about what people like Bezos do. It would have been notable even if they hadn't been public about it, just because the Post has endorsed every presidential race for decades. Eventually someone would have noticed and asked about it, and it just would have come out then. You may as well just say he could silently kill the Kindle line and it wouldn't be a controversy/reported on. He can literally tell Amazon employees to stop making them, but it doesn't mean it's not weird and notable that he's doing it.
- dmix 2y ago
  Regardless the more likely explanation is that this is a news story regardless of internal leaking. People will notice WaPo didn’t endorse anyone and someone’s going to say something.
noirbot 2y ago
Also, do you seriously think any more right wing paper wouldn't have leaked it if their owner had prevented them from endorsing? That if their owner had come in saying he preferred Harris and they couldn't endorse Trump that they'd have just gone home like "Hey, free market, he's rich, that's how it works?" Half of major right wing media is run by people whose whole identity is "a major paper said I couldn't write what I wanted so I quit and wrote what I wanted anyway". Getting "canceled" by a major newspaper is pretty much the #1 way to end up rich on Substack these days. They go around parading how much they're "free speech advocates" because they "won't let the rich elites decide what I can write" but suddenly when the rich elites are suppressing an endorsement of a more left candidate it's "it's bad faith and retaliatory to speak out about the rich deciding what you can publish".

cryptonector 2y ago

> If some billionaire owned the NY Post A billionaire does