4 ms·

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.

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.