10 ms·
Jeff Bezos' revamp of 'Washington Post' opinions leads editor to quit
- ChrisArchitect 2y ago[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43184762 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43184762
- Prbeek 2y agoSomeone now needs to buy NYT and NY Post and deny the neocons pro-war platforms.
- rayiner 2y agoThey could publish horoscopes and it would be an improvement.
- micromacrofoot 2y agothe NYT seems to be rather willing to post opinions like this already
- superb_dev 2y agoYes I’m sure the billionaires who would buy a newspaper to impose their own editorial are be anti-war
- drawkward 2y agoAnti-Putin != pro-war pro-Ukraine != pro-war Defending one's sovereign territory is not being pro-war. Only a bully would say that defending oneself from the bully is being aggressive.
- itsoktocry 2y ago>Defending one's sovereign territory is not being pro-war. Uh, they can't protect their own territory. >Only a bully would say that defending oneself from the bully is being aggressive This is a child-like representation of the conflict. Good and bad, bullies and those standing up to them. This didn't start in 2022, believe it or not. Russia should not have invaded. But they did, it happened. Unless you or your children are ready to go over there and fight in the conflict, what do you think the outcome here should be? Russia is a nuclear power; do you think Putin is going to risk losing? I truly don't understand. This idea of "oh my gosh, one country invaded another" as if this hasn't been the entirety of the history of civilization is strange.
- mopsi 2y ago> Russia is a nuclear power; do you think Putin is going to risk losing? Judging by the track record so far, we can expect vague comments seething with resentment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War#Russian_red_lines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lines_in_the_Russo-Ukraini...
- drawkward 2y ago[flagged]
- CamperBob2 2y ago[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- jemmyw 2y ago> Russia is a nuclear power; do you think Putin is going to risk losing? Given the track record of the US and Russia since getting nuclear weapons, yes? Nukes might be pretty good at stopping someone invading your country but they're probably not a great help if you're the invader and you want to occupy the place you're invading. Especially if it's right next door
- XorNot 2y agoIt's only clear they're good at stopping invasions by history. You could (and possibly are) seeing the precedent set that border disputes can escalate to kinetic conflicts without nukes getting involved - the problem is no one knows where the line is and historically that kept things calm. Who even knows if that's still the case though? If India goes after Kashmir so they genuinely think Pakistan would risk annihilation defending it if it was lost? Russia could easily dispose of NATO as an ongoing problem by losing a war with the Baltics if the US then disregards Article 5 because "well it's just not worth risking nuclear war". Appeasement doesn't work, but apparently we all forgot even the simplified history of WW2.
- mmooss 2y agoHow are neocons involved? They are extinct in Washington and most other places. Who is a neocon now?
- itsoktocry 2y agoMost of the Democratic Party?
- spondylosaurus 2y ago> "We'll cover other topics too of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others." You can share your opinion... as long as it's the correct opinion :) FWIW I do think papers can/should exercise discretion with the opinions they're willing to publish—not hard to imagine why someone might not want to platform hardcore extremists, hate speech, or just generally unwell people—but this is ridiculous. Especially since it's a clear move to favor the interests of said paper's billionaire owner.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- PathOfEclipse 2y ago> You can share your opinion... as long as it's the correct opinion :) That's obviously true of every newspaper in existence. No employee is allowed to publish any opinion that goes against their employers' wishes. From: https://nypost.com/2024/05/30/media/ex-new-york-times-reporter-says-newspaper-encouraged-insane-cancel-culture/ https://nypost.com/2024/05/30/media/ex-new-york-times-report... Two people were fired at the NYT after publishing a perfectly reasonable op-ed. And from: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10170541/Bari-Weisss-journalist-wife-Nellie-Bowles-reveals-bullied-NY-Times-too.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10170541/Bari-Weiss... "In the book, Bowles tells the stories she wasn’t allowed to tell at the [New York] Times: She writes, for example, about Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood, which transformed into a police-free “autonomous zone,” or CHAZ, Antifa protests, and the experience of attending an anti-racism training called “The Toxic Trends of Whiteness.”"
- spondylosaurus 2y agoUnless I'm misunderstanding, opinion columns aren't exclusively written by employees, though. Sometimes they have guests. I'm also a little skeptical of the NY Post and Daily Mail as sources, considering both are tabloids... do you have any others on hand?
- bluefirebrand 2y ago
- snowwrestler 2y agoWhen the National Enquirer contacted Bezos in 2019 about compromising pictures, he went public rather than play along with what he called blackmail and extortion. It cost him a lot of embarrassment and probably leverage in his divorce. But he turned the tables and put his opponents on the defensive. Obviously he does not feel that he can do so now, with so much of Amazon’s business in the crosshairs of the Trump administration. That is a shame because if he is not willing to go public with the extortionate threats he is facing, who will? It seems like a classic prisoners dilemma; if everyone stands up to corruption together, they can create the most protection. But who wants to go first?
- drawkward 2y agoBezos is 100% Pro-Trump.
- etchalon 2y agoBezos is 100% whatever keeps him rich.
- jeffs4271 2y agoBezos is 100% what doesn't have him waking up dead.
- alluro2 2y agoI think it's expected for majority of the rich to be. Trump's world is one where money can (sometimes quite directly) buy things that they couldn't, or were difficult, to buy before. And my perception might be very skewed, but to me it seems majority of the rich got there by not prioritizing moral goals and universal good above all, so this kind of world is more desirable.
- will4274 2y agoIn 2016, Bezos was anti-Trump and the Democratic candidate for president (Hillary Clinton) got nearly twice as much money from rich people as the Republican candidate for president (Donald Trump). It's not a sufficient explanation to say that the Trump or Republican ideology fundamentally appeals to rich people more.
- stevage 2y agoWild. Of all the things that do not seem to be under threat and desperately needing a newspaper to stand up and defend them: free markets in America.
- goatlover 2y ago25% tarrifs on Europe certainly isn't an example of free markets.
- nxm 2y agoIt is… free market allows reciprocity of tariffs levied against US products in the EU
- amanaplanacanal 2y agoI believe what you are describing is commonly known as fair trade, not free trade.
- gruez 2y agoAt least in common parlance, "fair trade" just referred to paying third world farmers a "fair" (ie. above market value) price.
- PaulHoule 2y agoIf there are 25% bidirectional tariffs the big companies win but you lose. In a free market without tariffs you are free to go to the better vendor no matter which country you go to. Competition makes everybody get better. With 25% tariffs Europeans go to the tired European monopoly and Americans get gouged by the American monopolies. The monopolists agree it's great but you pay more for worse services.
- loeg 2y agoThe president's tariffs are not wholly reciprocal to foreign tariffs.
- somethoughts 2y agoIt'd be interesting if a paper could present opposing op-eds side by side by authors that are clearly the strongest on each side of the discussion. Similar to collegiate debates or the argument/rebuttal style used for the ballot propositions we vote on. Often times - in today's media one side will present the other sides case by only addressing some strawman arguments.
- Avicebron 2y agoI like the idea, I think they would need to be staggered though, Author A writes an article giving their best case supporting X, a week later Author B writes a rebuttal to author A (let's assume it's well thought out and civil because we can still dream) in a follow up article, this continues for as long as it's an interesting conversation. Probably a hard sell to the modern audience and attention span, but I would read it as long as they both were substantive and well-reasoned.
- ncallaway 2y agoI think it's better to present simultaneously, but give the authors several rounds of drafting against each other, so they can update responses into their main body (similar to how supreme court opinions are authored and released). You'd need a really strong editor to be in charge of the review/revision/back-and-forth process, so they could cut out shenanigans like an author withholding their strongest argument, only to include it in their final version. I'd probably have a rule that no new arguments could be introduced into an article, other than as a direct response to anything _new_ that the opponent author included in their prior revision.
- Avicebron 2y agonot sure I'm familiar with supreme court opinions, but are those drafts public? edit because parent edited to talk about editor :): I think there needs to be transparency at the editorial level then, if the editor is making decisions they can write a reasoning behind each one and make it public.
- nimish 2y agoThe industry that awards the Joseph Pulitzer Prize has absolutely no legs to stand on. Insane hypocrisy to think that the owner of a newspaper doesn't have the right and obligation to set its editorial direction. Business is business. He can start his own newspaper if he wants to.
- layer8 2y agoThis is explicitly not about the editorial direction, but about op-eds, which are opinion pieces outside the editorial line. Of course a newspaper has largely the right to publish whatever it likes, but this new policy just increases the filter bubble and intellectual isolation, regardless of the editorial line. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op-ed
- jfengel 2y agoHe absolutely has the right. It destroys the credibility of the paper, but he bought it so he can break it. Generally, newspaper publishers leave editorial decisions to editors, i.e. people who have decades of experience rather than zero experience. So while it's not his obligation, it's definitely his right. And the former editor has the right to not help him destroy what little remains of the newspaper industry.
- etchalon 2y agoI think you're confusing "has the right to" with "has the right to without criticism or consequence."
- nimish 2y agoI'm not. I'm saying that the critics are hypocrites.
- guelo 2y agoBezos didn't start the Washington Post. He used his insane wealth to steal an established institution. Same with Elon and Twitter. It is the unchecked power of insane wealth that is tearing this country apart.
- zombiwoof 2y agoPut a pair of fake boobs in front of Bezos and he’ll do anything
- jprd 2y agoSomewhere, William Randolph Hearst is simultaneously smiling and jealous
- sega_sai 2y agoWP's phrase "Democracy dies in darkness" apparently was not a slogan, but a prediction.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- throwup238 2y agoIt was a call to arms.
- mc32 2y agoIt almost did but Bezos is rescuing it from the other extreme. Remains to be seen if he leaves it in the center or takes it to an opposite extreme. Shame few who’re complaining now complained when it became a one sided mouthpiece for the leftist establishment. But now they is big mad he be aligning it with his politics.
- neilv 2y ago> Shame few complained when it became a one sided mouthpiece for the leftist establishment. Did it? Why did only few complain?
- guelo 2y agoOk I'll believe you if you give specifics. Here we have the WaPo publisher specifically saying he will bias the paper towards libertarianism. What's a similar example on the other side?
- slantedview 2y agoAs if income inequality arising from the failure (or success?) of neoliberalism isn't bad enough already, we need one of the nation's top papers to cheerlead for more neoliberalism.
- gdilla 2y agoIt's PR firm press release to get ahead of the mass resignations (or resistance he's meeting inside). He thinks he can get in front of the story of him exerting editorial control.
- abigail95 2y agoNothing in the story suggests anything about editorial control.
- wewtyflakes 2y agoDoesn't the article open with a declaration of such control? "The Washington Post's billionaire owner, Jeff Bezos, announced a sweeping new libertarian vision for the paper's opinion sections on Wednesday, just four months after his decision to kill a presidential endorsement of Kamala Harris triggered hundreds of thousands of subscribers to cancel."
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoIn media circles, there's a widespread perspective that the opinions page is completely firewalled from the rest of the newspaper and it's wrong to draw inferences that ideological capture of one might influence the other. I personally consider this to be a polite fiction at best, but I have to acknowledge that people who actually work for newspapers pretty uniformly disagree with me.
- afavour 2y agoHuh? It is specifically a story about Bezos dictating what opinions will be published in his opinion section. That is definitely editorial control.
- immibis 2y ago[flagged]
- will4274 2y ago
- techorange 2y agoHere's the thing that bothers me. In opposition to this someone would likely say "You were ok when liberals were censoring everything, and now the shoe's on the other foot, go shove it" But actually, someone deciding to make biased media doesn't bother me that much. I mean, it's not great, I would prefer X have non-partisan ownership, but it happens, and free societies have an exhaust valve, particularly America: People are contrarian. The more you see conservatives try to control media in avoidable ways, the more people will fight that influence. In the wake of the election Meidas Touch, a liberal podcast just overtook Joe Rogan. The thing that concerns me is this: I think some people in power know this. Well I think all people in power know this, and I think some people currently in power who are intent on doing something about it.
- pinkmuffinere 2y agoI appreciate your balanced view. It reminds me of “I disagree with your opinion, but will defend your right to share it” (paraphrased)
- guywithahat 2y agoIsn’t X’s ownership less bias now? You don’t get banned for mainstream political opinions anymore, and the fact-checking seems less biased (as evidence: Elon gets hit with community notes all the time). Certainly Elon makes a bigger scene, but politically he seems more center than Jack was. I mean it wasn’t that many months ago that Elon was considered a solid blue Democrat
- SpicyLemonZest 2y agoElon's opinions and moderation preferences have changed quite severely since he was considered a solid blue Democrat. He no longer allows himself to be hit with community notes, for example, ever since he was community noted for spreading misinformation about the Ukranian president's approval ratings.
- guywithahat 2y agoElon gets hit with community notes all the time, just last week he made a post to the effect of “the fed doesn’t use SQL” and community notes was on him almost immediately.
- AndyKelley 2y agoall these cowards resigning instead of doing subterfuge
- tlogan 2y ago[flagged]
- kevingadd 2y agoI am struggling to see the connection between the body of your post and the WP's editorial changes, but to engage with your post as a leftist for a moment: - When you say you were criticizing HSR and got downvoted for it, is it because you were promoting Elon or Hyperloop in the same post? Were you arguing against public transit? I can't really imagine a good reason to downvote a post just for basic criticism, but I can imagine people seeing something that smells like Elon boosterism and downvoting that. (I don't, personally.) - Criticizing public school closures without having a solid foundation behind the argument is probably a good way to earn a downvote from people who value human lives over schools staying open. During the early days, COVID was killing a lot of people. You can argue over where we should have struck the balance there, and there's data to support that we did it incorrectly. But people who remember losing loved ones to COVID will naturally get heated over 'we did too much'-type takes so I can understand how you'd catch downvotes for that. - ID requirements for things with ticketing are pretty boring and commonplace? I can't remember the last time ID wasn't required for a ticketed event I went to, though it's been years now thanks to COVID. So what you've described here - interpreted generously - would have come across as an attempt to complain about vaccination requirements being clumsily masked by throwing in the ID requirement. I don't know the actual tone and content of the post though.
- guelo 2y agoWith your sample size of n=1 you came to the wrong conclusion about HN moderation. To then expand that experience to justify tearing society apart is quite the reach.
- Vaslo 2y ago> Tearing down society Yikes, very dramatic view. Exactly what OP is referencing.
- leocgcd 2y agoWhy do you talk about these things like you "can't." You obviously can. You made the post. Losing karma is engagement with your post. I would like to think the truly right-wing-- in it's best sense-- attitude would be an appreciation for the ability to openly voice these opinions and the ability for people to openly disagree with you. If you're getting downvoted by individuals for your criticism of a private opera house's policies, that's a win for personal liberties, not an indictment of them. I don't mean to strawman, but it seems like you're advocating for the exact opposite of what you claim. You want an authority to step in and tell these people downvoting you that they can't have their opinions? You want your viewpoints to have a certain number of mandated agreements?
- brianbest101 2y ago[dead]
- guywithahat 2y agoMessage from Bezos: https://x.com/jeffbezos/status/1894757287052362088 https://x.com/jeffbezos/status/1894757287052362088 Honestly this seems like an important step to me. The WaPo had become too polarized in a direction Americans and international readers didn’t recognize, and I think it’ll be good to try and center the paper politically again
- thrance 2y agoThis is just another step toward him getting editorial control of the journal. The billionaire class will not stop until all media (legacy or social) are turned into echo chambers in favor of kleptocracy (disguised as "personal liberties", of course). And it works, Trump just gave $4.5 trillions in tax cuts to the wealthy [1]. Democracy truly dies in darkness. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp9yx7e13ryo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp9yx7e13ryo
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- moralestapia 2y agoA million others are ready to take his place :D.
- yieldcrv 2y agoI'm kind of loving this libertarian checklist and representation in a coalition party masquerading as Republican was wondering if anyone noticed. Trump had campaigned to Libertarians earlier last year and so far has done everything they had asked for in exchange for votes Kind of cool that others feel comfortable espousing previously dismissed libertarian beliefs Bezos will find staff writers
- subsection1h 2y ago> Trump had campaigned to Libertarians earlier last year and so far has done everything they had asked for Trump stopped funding Israel? https://lp.org/blogs-anonymous-chaos-in-gaza/ https://lp.org/blogs-anonymous-chaos-in-gaza/
- yieldcrv 2y agoAh missed that one
- westurner 2y agoHere's a post linking to a BBC article about same that was flagged and censored here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43191562 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43191562 ; > the newspaper's opinion section will focus on supporting “personal liberties and free markets", Free trade! Fair trade! > and pieces opposing those views will not be published. Boo, fascist corporate oligarchical censorship!
- westurner 2y agoYou might say, "actually that's not fascism, Bob" because fascism is when the government exercises control over the non-government-held corporations. Fascism is like domming Apple's DEI policies when without Congress you can't make law, or telling people they should buy TikTok for you, with your name on all the checks. Fascism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
- consteval 2y agoI think the argument is that since the US has legal and well-established corruption there's no difference. Meaning, a billionaire is easily more influential in legislation than a legislator or even multiple legislators, so he is now inseparable from government and is an agent of the government.
- westurner 2y agoAt least they've disclosed their intent to impose editorial bias on the opinion section. It doesn't say "Fair and Balanced." From "Fed to ban policymakers from owning individual stocks" (2021) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28951646 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28951646 : > "Blind Trust" > "Use by US government officials to avoid conflicts of interest" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_trust https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_trust : >> The US federal government recognizes the "qualified blind trust" (QBT), as defined by the Ethics in Government Act and related regulations.[1] In order for a blind trust to be a QBT, the trustee must not be affiliated with, associated with, related to, or subject to the control or influence of the government official. >> Because the assets initially placed in the QBT are known to the government official (who is both creator and beneficiary of the trust), these assets continue to pose a potential conflict of interest until they have been sold (or reduced to a value less than $1,000). New assets purchased by the trustee will not be disclosed to the government official, so they will not pose a conflict. > https://www.oge.gov/ https://www.oge.gov/ The Ethics in Government Act which created OGE was passed by Congress in 1978 in response to Watergate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_in_Government_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics_in_Government_Act
- wg0 2y agoBillionaires are deciding what peasants can listen.
- ipaddr 2y agoThat's called the mass media. The media act as voices for the rich.
- zelon88 2y agoWhat's even crazier is the ad spend right now by PR firms representing this nonsense. Pretty much every generic clickbait account on FB (names like "Focal Flow", "Humanity", "Engineering Today", ect) have all exposed themselves as basically being one-in-the-same account. The clear shift in algorithms has me shaken. It's clear that all the technocrat billionaires are on-board with the coup. I mean Bezos himself used to hate Trump, but seems to be shilling this time because Trump embarrassed him publicly and cost him government contracts last time. Same with Zuckerberg. They all went from mortal enemies of Donald Trump to attending his inauguration and clamoring for favor. It's disgraceful. And Linda Yaccarino is outright threatening advertisers who boycott with lawsuits and government interference. This is wild, and disgraceful, and sad.
- ouraf 2y agoAnyone here old enough to remember if the Fairness doctrine worked? Current internet is impossible to regulate and it's easier to run Doom in a walnut than getting any site to issue a retraction or correct blatant lies, but relying on "arbiters of truth" or wasting hours or days to untangle every article and author is also a hard to concile with real life obligations.