6 ms·

> 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 prope

> 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 ago
  Independence 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 ago
  Independent 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.
  - lurking15 2y ago
    But "opinion journalism" isn't news, it's editorializing. So you accept news that is effectively propaganda as long as it's "independent" from the outlet ownership?
    - j_maffe 2y ago
      I don't accept anything that isn't properly cited and sufficient evidence is provided from reliable sources. Neutral news offerings (such as AP or Reuters) are of course a better source of news. It is however useful to subscribe to journals that has some form of basic agreement on fundamental values. For example, it'd be useless for me to follow a news outlet that downplays the importance of democracy. This is not propaganda, as opinionated journalism's objective is still to transparently cover issues it cares about without distortion or attempt at manipulation, which is very different from propaganda.
      - lurking15 2y ago
        > For example, it'd be useless for me to follow a news outlet that downplays the importance of democracy. You seem to be pretty strident and inflexible in your thinking, so at least you recognize that you're unable to read anything that challenges your rigid precepts and offers an opportunity to expand your mind or engage in a real exchange of ideas. And please spare me the predictable response, because it's clear that you don't care about democracy exactly, like so many others nowadays, it's an amorphous stand-in that allows you to thoughtlessly discard opposition.
        j_maffe 2y ago
        I said I wouldn't follow a news outlet. That doesn't mean I wouldn't entertain any opinions or arguments that challenge my own. > And please spare me the predictable response, because it's clear that you don't care about democracy exactly. I will save myself writing your own words for you: > You seem to be pretty strident and inflexible in your thinking,
graemep 2y ago
"But whether it's in its interest" How do you define "its interest"? It is a business. It does not have interests of its own. its owners have interests - in this case its the one owner who has that. Its staff may have interests, as may other people, and there is always a public interest. > 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 I agree it is a problem, but, as far as traditional media goes, it is a lost cause. Can you see anything that will cause big media businesses to split themselves?
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  > It is a business. It does not have interests of its own. its owners have interests - in this case its the one owner who has that. Its staff may have interests You nailed it here: bezos, as the dude who owns the paper has a vested interest in his personal success, whether the paper succeeds or not. If it came down to him or the paper, he would choose himself. The editorial team, as the people who run the paper and are responsible for its quality, has a vested interest in the success of the paper. They decide what the interests of the paper are. If bezos goes against the editorial team, that is bezos' interests conflicting with their interests, and thus the paper's interests.
  - graemep 2y ago
    > has a vested interest in the success of the paper What defines the success of the paper? Why do employees rather than the owner (who ultimately appoints them) get to decide? It is a business. If it was a non-profit organisation you would have a point (although I do not personally think much of the big non for profit media organisations I can think of). Even if it had a structure designed to promote other values over profits (as Reuters does) you would have a point. In this case, AFAIK, it is simply the property of its owner. People get to decide what to do with their property.
    - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
      > What defines the success of the paper? The people who run it, day-in and day-out, are best-equipped to answer this question. > Why do employees rather than the owner (who ultimately appoints them) get to decide? Because each employee fits the above criteria, and is thus better-poised to make such a judgement compared to one single person who is not. And when it comes to multiple-such, better-equipped judges, the disparity becomes starker. > People get to decide what to do with their property. This is a red herring. Nobody is saying bezos can't decide what to do with his property. He's just not as well equipped as Post employees, to judge whether his decision is good for The Post. After all, having money obviously doesn't mean you have better info, or have more context, or make superior judgements. In some cases it just means you got a good head-start because your dad owned an apartheid emerald mine, or a portfolio of new york slums.

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 ago
Independence 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 ago
Independent 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.
- lurking15 2y ago
  But "opinion journalism" isn't news, it's editorializing. So you accept news that is effectively propaganda as long as it's "independent" from the outlet ownership?
  - j_maffe 2y ago
    I don't accept anything that isn't properly cited and sufficient evidence is provided from reliable sources. Neutral news offerings (such as AP or Reuters) are of course a better source of news. It is however useful to subscribe to journals that has some form of basic agreement on fundamental values. For example, it'd be useless for me to follow a news outlet that downplays the importance of democracy. This is not propaganda, as opinionated journalism's objective is still to transparently cover issues it cares about without distortion or attempt at manipulation, which is very different from propaganda.
    - lurking15 2y ago
      > For example, it'd be useless for me to follow a news outlet that downplays the importance of democracy. You seem to be pretty strident and inflexible in your thinking, so at least you recognize that you're unable to read anything that challenges your rigid precepts and offers an opportunity to expand your mind or engage in a real exchange of ideas. And please spare me the predictable response, because it's clear that you don't care about democracy exactly, like so many others nowadays, it's an amorphous stand-in that allows you to thoughtlessly discard opposition.
      - j_maffe 2y ago
        I said I wouldn't follow a news outlet. That doesn't mean I wouldn't entertain any opinions or arguments that challenge my own. > And please spare me the predictable response, because it's clear that you don't care about democracy exactly. I will save myself writing your own words for you: > You seem to be pretty strident and inflexible in your thinking,

graemep 2y ago

"But whether it's in its interest" How do you define "its interest"? It is a business. It does not have interests of its own. its owners have interests - in this case its the one owner who has that. Its staff may have interests, as may other people, and there is always a public interest. > 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 I agree it is a problem, but, as far as traditional media goes, it is a lost cause. Can you see anything that will cause big media businesses to split themselves?

ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
> It is a business. It does not have interests of its own. its owners have interests - in this case its the one owner who has that. Its staff may have interests You nailed it here: bezos, as the dude who owns the paper has a vested interest in his personal success, whether the paper succeeds or not. If it came down to him or the paper, he would choose himself. The editorial team, as the people who run the paper and are responsible for its quality, has a vested interest in the success of the paper. They decide what the interests of the paper are. If bezos goes against the editorial team, that is bezos' interests conflicting with their interests, and thus the paper's interests.
- graemep 2y ago
  > has a vested interest in the success of the paper What defines the success of the paper? Why do employees rather than the owner (who ultimately appoints them) get to decide? It is a business. If it was a non-profit organisation you would have a point (although I do not personally think much of the big non for profit media organisations I can think of). Even if it had a structure designed to promote other values over profits (as Reuters does) you would have a point. In this case, AFAIK, it is simply the property of its owner. People get to decide what to do with their property.
  - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    > What defines the success of the paper? The people who run it, day-in and day-out, are best-equipped to answer this question. > Why do employees rather than the owner (who ultimately appoints them) get to decide? Because each employee fits the above criteria, and is thus better-poised to make such a judgement compared to one single person who is not. And when it comes to multiple-such, better-equipped judges, the disparity becomes starker. > People get to decide what to do with their property. This is a red herring. Nobody is saying bezos can't decide what to do with his property. He's just not as well equipped as Post employees, to judge whether his decision is good for The Post. After all, having money obviously doesn't mean you have better info, or have more context, or make superior judgements. In some cases it just means you got a good head-start because your dad owned an apartheid emerald mine, or a portfolio of new york slums.