4 ms·

> Couldn't a simple answer here be that he felt Kamala is unqualified and terrible and as a newspaper with a lot of readership and influence, he decided against

> Couldn't a simple answer here be that he felt Kamala is unqualified and terrible and as a newspaper with a lot of readership and influence, he decided against endorsing her? Sure, but why should the personal opinion of the owner of the newspaper prevail over the opinion of the editorial staff?

bogantech 2y ago
Because he owns the paper and they don't
roenxi 2y ago
Because they own the newspaper. The question answers itself. There isn't any reason some random employee should have their opinion privileged over the owner. Or vice versa, to be fair, but the joy of being an owner is being able to pull rank. If an owner can't get decisions made in a way that is favourable to them then there are very real questions about whether they are, in fact, owning the company.
- noirbot 2y ago
  Sure, and we get to look at the fact that he silently pulled rank to kill a story for craven reasons and decide worse of him and decide that his control of the news we get from that paper makes it suspect to his whims. If he's willing to kill something this major, he's willing to kill smaller stories about Amazon, or himself, or anything else him or his friends care about. It completely flies in the face of the values of the paper and the reasons Bezos said he was buying it. If I wanted to get Bezos's press releases, I could get them on Amazon or Blue Origin's press site. No one's claiming he's not literally allowed to do this, but that it's spoiling the product. If Bezos bought McDonalds and made it serve only vegan burgers without explanation that's totally his right as the owner, but it's insane and makes you question why they did it.
- metabagel 2y ago
  You’re not answering “why should”. You’re answering “why can” - a question which was not asked.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    In this situation the distinction makes no difference. The editors' opinions are just what some otherwise random people think. They happen to have control over what a newspaper reports so they get to broadcast that opinion widely. Them being overruled by a different random person with somewhat more power over what the newspaper prints is not philosophically interesting. Nobody is seeking these editors out for their personal opinion, I doubt many could name them. The editors are relying on the WaPo brand. They aren't all that legitimate a source of political opinion although they are as entitled to it as much as anyone else and it isn't a big deal if they want to publish it in the paper they edit (gotta fill the space with something and they believe what they believe).
    - thimabi 2y ago
      Wouldn’t you say that the WaPo brand owns its prestige much to the journalists, editors and other professionals who build the newspaper on a day by day basis? These are not random people whose opinion matter as much as those of other random people. At least in theory, people seek the Post for the quality of the work done by the editorial staff. Accordingly, the staff should have more — not less — influence over the content of the paper. No one buys the Post out of a wish to read Bezos’ personal views or those of random strangers.
      - roenxi 2y ago
        > Wouldn’t you say that the WaPo brand owns its prestige much to the journalists, editors and other professionals who build the newspaper on a day by day basis? Yeah. But statistically some of them are going to vote Trump so I don't think that is much of an argument why the WaPo endorsement decision needs to be made by any specific committee in the WaPo. There are arguments for and against both candidates - the WaPo as an institution might be good at presenting both but it isn't competent to make the decision on which president is a better choice. That includes Bezos for what it is worth. If we're talking shoulds, in theory they shouldn't be endorsing anyone. > No one buys the Post out of a wish to read Bezos’ personal views or those of random strangers. Sounds to me like that is exactly why people buy newspapers. The drive is to find out what a community at large thinks about things and to figure out how a random sample of a community is interpreting events. If I want to learn what an expert opinion is on a topic I would not be turning to the WaPo to try and figure it out. Although with the advent of the internet we've discovered that professional corporate journalists do a terrible job of capturing that so I expect they're being replaced by podcasters with more independence. Owner's influence has never stopped at nixing one decision.
- Capricorn2481 2y ago
  HN once again refusing to engage with the world outside of Peter Thiel quotes. Business owner good.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    I don't mean to. Which part is the Thiel quote?
- big_whack 2y ago
  This is one of the ostensible guiding principles of the Washington Post: "The newspaper’s duty is to its readers and to the public at large, and not to the private interests of its owners."
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
defen 2y ago
They can make their own newspaper, or go on X or something, if they want to make their opinions known. He's not saying they can't voice their opinions, he's saying they can't use HIS platform to do it.

bogantech 2y ago

Because he owns the paper and they don't

roenxi 2y ago

Because they own the newspaper. The question answers itself. There isn't any reason some random employee should have their opinion privileged over the owner. Or vice versa, to be fair, but the joy of being an owner is being able to pull rank. If an owner can't get decisions made in a way that is favourable to them then there are very real questions about whether they are, in fact, owning the company.

noirbot 2y ago
Sure, and we get to look at the fact that he silently pulled rank to kill a story for craven reasons and decide worse of him and decide that his control of the news we get from that paper makes it suspect to his whims. If he's willing to kill something this major, he's willing to kill smaller stories about Amazon, or himself, or anything else him or his friends care about. It completely flies in the face of the values of the paper and the reasons Bezos said he was buying it. If I wanted to get Bezos's press releases, I could get them on Amazon or Blue Origin's press site. No one's claiming he's not literally allowed to do this, but that it's spoiling the product. If Bezos bought McDonalds and made it serve only vegan burgers without explanation that's totally his right as the owner, but it's insane and makes you question why they did it.
metabagel 2y ago
You’re not answering “why should”. You’re answering “why can” - a question which was not asked.
- roenxi 2y ago
  In this situation the distinction makes no difference. The editors' opinions are just what some otherwise random people think. They happen to have control over what a newspaper reports so they get to broadcast that opinion widely. Them being overruled by a different random person with somewhat more power over what the newspaper prints is not philosophically interesting. Nobody is seeking these editors out for their personal opinion, I doubt many could name them. The editors are relying on the WaPo brand. They aren't all that legitimate a source of political opinion although they are as entitled to it as much as anyone else and it isn't a big deal if they want to publish it in the paper they edit (gotta fill the space with something and they believe what they believe).
  - thimabi 2y ago
    Wouldn’t you say that the WaPo brand owns its prestige much to the journalists, editors and other professionals who build the newspaper on a day by day basis? These are not random people whose opinion matter as much as those of other random people. At least in theory, people seek the Post for the quality of the work done by the editorial staff. Accordingly, the staff should have more — not less — influence over the content of the paper. No one buys the Post out of a wish to read Bezos’ personal views or those of random strangers.
    - roenxi 2y ago
      > Wouldn’t you say that the WaPo brand owns its prestige much to the journalists, editors and other professionals who build the newspaper on a day by day basis? Yeah. But statistically some of them are going to vote Trump so I don't think that is much of an argument why the WaPo endorsement decision needs to be made by any specific committee in the WaPo. There are arguments for and against both candidates - the WaPo as an institution might be good at presenting both but it isn't competent to make the decision on which president is a better choice. That includes Bezos for what it is worth. If we're talking shoulds, in theory they shouldn't be endorsing anyone. > No one buys the Post out of a wish to read Bezos’ personal views or those of random strangers. Sounds to me like that is exactly why people buy newspapers. The drive is to find out what a community at large thinks about things and to figure out how a random sample of a community is interpreting events. If I want to learn what an expert opinion is on a topic I would not be turning to the WaPo to try and figure it out. Although with the advent of the internet we've discovered that professional corporate journalists do a terrible job of capturing that so I expect they're being replaced by podcasters with more independence. Owner's influence has never stopped at nixing one decision.
Capricorn2481 2y ago
HN once again refusing to engage with the world outside of Peter Thiel quotes. Business owner good.
- roenxi 2y ago
  I don't mean to. Which part is the Thiel quote?
big_whack 2y ago
This is one of the ostensible guiding principles of the Washington Post: "The newspaper’s duty is to its readers and to the public at large, and not to the private interests of its owners."

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

defen 2y ago

They can make their own newspaper, or go on X or something, if they want to make their opinions known. He's not saying they can't voice their opinions, he's saying they can't use HIS platform to do it.