4 ms·

Jeff Bezos: Americans don't trust the news media

christhecaribou 2y ago
This American doesn’t trust Jeff Bezos.
- chiefalchemist 2y ago
  Who does? Or should? What has he - the private citizen - done to earn our trust? Nothing. If it's not earned, it's not trust.
  - anthony_d 2y ago
    Telling the Post to not endorse a candidate is a step in the trustworthy direction.
    - christhecaribou 2y ago
      Not the week before an election
      - EasyMark 2y ago
        And meeting with Trump people about Blue Origin. And an editor that says that resigned out of frustration who said as much.
        skissane 2y ago
        > And meeting with Trump people about Blue Origin. Blue Origin executives briefly met with Trump on the same day the non-endorsement was announced. But was that some kind of quid pro quo or was it just a coincidence? Did they or Trump know about WaPo’s non-endorsement at the time they arranged the meeting? Did it factor into either side’s decision to meet? Blue Origin and WaPo are completely separate businesses with a common owner. I wouldn’t expect them to coordinate with each other, with rare exceptions-the most likely exception would be logistical issues with their common owner’s schedule/transportation/security/etc. I doubt Blue executives knew about the WaPo announcement beforehand, and if they’d already planned to meet with Trump that day, why would they have thought it a reason to change their plans? They’ve probably met with Harris too, or at least would like to if she is willing. It is in their best interest to hedge their bets to maximise the odds of a positive relationship with the White House no matter who wins.
        christhecaribou 2y ago
        Jesus, are people really this naive to think Bezos didn’t orchestrate all of this intentionally?
        skissane 2y ago
        > are people really this naive to think Bezos didn’t orchestrate all of this intentionally? I think it is completely within the bounds of the reasonably possible that he did. But I don’t think anyone has hard evidence he did, just suspicions. Sometimes, the devious answer is the correct one; other times, the real situation is more innocent and it just looks devious. Given the paucity of evidence, I think agnosticism is the most rational position.
    - chiefalchemist 2y ago
      My point is that admiring someone, someone being financially successful, etc. is not grounds for real trust. Having a high public profile and an excess of media impressions doesn't mean they've actually earned trust. These might all be general signals for someone who is trustworthy, but proxies are not the real thing. Trust that is not earned, is not trust at all.
- simonebrunozzi 2y ago
  Without saying "why", and substantiate it with data or facts, your comment is simply useless.
lapcat 2y ago
> I sighed when I found out Oh dearie dear, the trials and tribulations of 3rd wealthiest person in the world. > I once wrote that The Post is a “complexifier” for me. It is, but it turns out I’m also a complexifier for The Post. The only credible response to this would be, "Therefore, I'm going to sell The Post."
- yodon 2y ago
  >The only credible response to this would be, "Therefore, I'm going to sell The Post." To whom? Any other individual or organization with sufficient assets to make the purchase would also have sufficient assets to complexify and be complexified by the Post.
  - lapcat 2y ago
    Take it public.
    - amadeuspagel 2y ago
      The Washington Post is not profitable and has no path to profitability.
      - 6510 2y ago
        He could fill it with top 10 amazon product articles.
- 65 2y ago
  [flagged]
aduffy 2y ago
I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I think there's a valid argument that traditional media is struggling to hold the attention of modern readers, and trust in news organizations is at all-time lows. On the other hand, there has always been a solid separation between the editorial page and the newsroom of every major paper, just look at WSJ. WSJ has not endorsed a presidential candidate since 1928, but it's no secret that their editorial board is robustly conservative. The Post is clearly a left of center publication and their editorial board has opinions that they should be free to share. In a world where Musk has turned Twitter into a pay-to-play MAGA playpen, I don't think there is anything wrong with a newspaper *opinion section* providing a clear, well-articulated endorsement of a candidate based on their merits.
- mandevil 2y ago
  Right. If this decision had been made and announced two years ago, no one cares. But according to published reports, the Editorial Board actually wrote up an endorsement and then the owner decided to spike it at the last minute- that's a big huge deal! This whole thing is just really poorly handled on Bezos part. If the reports are true and 8% of their paid subscribers have canceled since Friday (1), Bezos really screwed up quite badly here. And you have the Editorial Page Editor David Shipley throwing Bezos directly under the bus in that same report (2) so he had to come out and offer this ham-handed justification, but it is just a sign of a dumb decision. I just can't believe he decided that lying to a bunch of reporters was a good idea. 1: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/28/nx-s1-5168416/washington-post-bezos-endorsement-president-cancellations-resignations https://www.npr.org/2024/10/28/nx-s1-5168416/washington-post... reports 200,000 cancellations since Friday, in an environment where the managing editor was touting 4,000 subscriber increases as a sign of progress. 2: "As recently as last week, according to a person present, Shipley said he sought to talk Bezos out of his decision. Shipley added, 'I failed.'" Ibid.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    How about this report to spice things up: Blue Origin executives meeting up with Trump the day the endorsement cancellation was announced? https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4954591-trump-meets-blue-origin-leaders-bezos/ https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4954591-trump-meets-bl...
clipsy 2y ago
Surely the way to increase trust is to have all important decisions made by an unaccountable billionaire!
ggm 2y ago
The time to withdraw from editorial recommendations was 2 years ago. Doing it at this stage in the electoral cycle is Comey on Hillary: The "I am not intervening" which is de-facto a massive intervention. I don't think Bezos comes out of this very well frankly.
nataliste 2y ago
[flagged]
- clipsy 2y ago
  I don't see a single person arguing the legality of it.
  - nataliste 2y ago
    Then why get upset about it?
twangist 2y ago
[flagged]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
6510 2y ago
There are so many official lies that you cant have big news outlets anymore. Almost everyone is tired of at least one of the lies but if you are honest about all of if the news outlet wont survive.
_zagj 2y ago
Bezos has clearly been taking steroids for a few years now, and I wonder if that's contributing to his apparent shift to the right. A similar thing seems to be happening with Zuckerberg, who, while not showing obvious signs of PED use, has shown signs of shifting right as he's been training MMA with UFC fighters.
- simonebrunozzi 2y ago
  What a stupid comment. Has it been shown that steroids push a shift to the right? Also, he has access to the best trainers in the world, do you think that he needs to take steroids as much as a normal person does? You can't dispute that he is one of the most intelligent persons on the last few decades, what's the sense of talking about steroids and political affiliation?
badocr 2y ago
Why is this flagged but the thread titled "Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris" with 1041 comments isn't? What am I missing?

This American doesn’t trust Jeff Bezos.

chiefalchemist 2y ago
Who does? Or should? What has he - the private citizen - done to earn our trust? Nothing. If it's not earned, it's not trust.
- anthony_d 2y ago
  Telling the Post to not endorse a candidate is a step in the trustworthy direction.
  - christhecaribou 2y ago
    Not the week before an election
    - EasyMark 2y ago
      And meeting with Trump people about Blue Origin. And an editor that says that resigned out of frustration who said as much.
      - skissane 2y ago
        > And meeting with Trump people about Blue Origin. Blue Origin executives briefly met with Trump on the same day the non-endorsement was announced. But was that some kind of quid pro quo or was it just a coincidence? Did they or Trump know about WaPo’s non-endorsement at the time they arranged the meeting? Did it factor into either side’s decision to meet? Blue Origin and WaPo are completely separate businesses with a common owner. I wouldn’t expect them to coordinate with each other, with rare exceptions-the most likely exception would be logistical issues with their common owner’s schedule/transportation/security/etc. I doubt Blue executives knew about the WaPo announcement beforehand, and if they’d already planned to meet with Trump that day, why would they have thought it a reason to change their plans? They’ve probably met with Harris too, or at least would like to if she is willing. It is in their best interest to hedge their bets to maximise the odds of a positive relationship with the White House no matter who wins.
        christhecaribou 2y ago
        Jesus, are people really this naive to think Bezos didn’t orchestrate all of this intentionally?
        skissane 2y ago
        > are people really this naive to think Bezos didn’t orchestrate all of this intentionally? I think it is completely within the bounds of the reasonably possible that he did. But I don’t think anyone has hard evidence he did, just suspicions. Sometimes, the devious answer is the correct one; other times, the real situation is more innocent and it just looks devious. Given the paucity of evidence, I think agnosticism is the most rational position.
  - chiefalchemist 2y ago
    My point is that admiring someone, someone being financially successful, etc. is not grounds for real trust. Having a high public profile and an excess of media impressions doesn't mean they've actually earned trust. These might all be general signals for someone who is trustworthy, but proxies are not the real thing. Trust that is not earned, is not trust at all.
simonebrunozzi 2y ago
Without saying "why", and substantiate it with data or facts, your comment is simply useless.

> I sighed when I found out Oh dearie dear, the trials and tribulations of 3rd wealthiest person in the world. > I once wrote that The Post is a “complexifier” for me. It is, but it turns out I’m also a complexifier for The Post. The only credible response to this would be, "Therefore, I'm going to sell The Post."

yodon 2y ago
>The only credible response to this would be, "Therefore, I'm going to sell The Post." To whom? Any other individual or organization with sufficient assets to make the purchase would also have sufficient assets to complexify and be complexified by the Post.
- lapcat 2y ago
  Take it public.
  - amadeuspagel 2y ago
    The Washington Post is not profitable and has no path to profitability.
    - 6510 2y ago
      He could fill it with top 10 amazon product articles.
65 2y ago
[flagged]

aduffy 2y ago

I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, I think there's a valid argument that traditional media is struggling to hold the attention of modern readers, and trust in news organizations is at all-time lows. On the other hand, there has always been a solid separation between the editorial page and the newsroom of every major paper, just look at WSJ. WSJ has not endorsed a presidential candidate since 1928, but it's no secret that their editorial board is robustly conservative. The Post is clearly a left of center publication and their editorial board has opinions that they should be free to share. In a world where Musk has turned Twitter into a pay-to-play MAGA playpen, I don't think there is anything wrong with a newspaper *opinion section* providing a clear, well-articulated endorsement of a candidate based on their merits.

mandevil 2y ago
Right. If this decision had been made and announced two years ago, no one cares. But according to published reports, the Editorial Board actually wrote up an endorsement and then the owner decided to spike it at the last minute- that's a big huge deal! This whole thing is just really poorly handled on Bezos part. If the reports are true and 8% of their paid subscribers have canceled since Friday (1), Bezos really screwed up quite badly here. And you have the Editorial Page Editor David Shipley throwing Bezos directly under the bus in that same report (2) so he had to come out and offer this ham-handed justification, but it is just a sign of a dumb decision. I just can't believe he decided that lying to a bunch of reporters was a good idea. 1: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/28/nx-s1-5168416/washington-post-bezos-endorsement-president-cancellations-resignations https://www.npr.org/2024/10/28/nx-s1-5168416/washington-post... reports 200,000 cancellations since Friday, in an environment where the managing editor was touting 4,000 subscriber increases as a sign of progress. 2: "As recently as last week, according to a person present, Shipley said he sought to talk Bezos out of his decision. Shipley added, 'I failed.'" Ibid.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  How about this report to spice things up: Blue Origin executives meeting up with Trump the day the endorsement cancellation was announced? https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4954591-trump-meets-blue-origin-leaders-bezos/ https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4954591-trump-meets-bl...

clipsy 2y ago

Surely the way to increase trust is to have all important decisions made by an unaccountable billionaire!

ggm 2y ago

The time to withdraw from editorial recommendations was 2 years ago. Doing it at this stage in the electoral cycle is Comey on Hillary: The "I am not intervening" which is de-facto a massive intervention. I don't think Bezos comes out of this very well frankly.

nataliste 2y ago

[flagged]

clipsy 2y ago
I don't see a single person arguing the legality of it.
- nataliste 2y ago
  Then why get upset about it?

twangist 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

6510 2y ago

There are so many official lies that you cant have big news outlets anymore. Almost everyone is tired of at least one of the lies but if you are honest about all of if the news outlet wont survive.

_zagj 2y ago

Bezos has clearly been taking steroids for a few years now, and I wonder if that's contributing to his apparent shift to the right. A similar thing seems to be happening with Zuckerberg, who, while not showing obvious signs of PED use, has shown signs of shifting right as he's been training MMA with UFC fighters.

simonebrunozzi 2y ago
What a stupid comment. Has it been shown that steroids push a shift to the right? Also, he has access to the best trainers in the world, do you think that he needs to take steroids as much as a normal person does? You can't dispute that he is one of the most intelligent persons on the last few decades, what's the sense of talking about steroids and political affiliation?

badocr 2y ago

Why is this flagged but the thread titled "Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris" with 1041 comments isn't? What am I missing?