Bezos: 'Presidential Endorsements Do Nothing' 388
theodp writes: "Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election," argues Jeff Bezos in The Hard Truth: Americans Don't Trust the News Media, a WaPo op-ed defense of his decision as owner of The Washington Post to end the newspaper's tradition of endorsing candidates for president.
"No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, 'I'm going with Newspaper A's endorsement.' None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it's the right one. Eugene Meyer, publisher of The Washington Post from 1933 to 1946, thought the same, and he was right. By itself, declining to endorse presidential candidates is not enough to move us very far up the trust scale, but it's a meaningful step in the right direction. I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it. That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy."
"No undecided voters in Pennsylvania are going to say, 'I'm going with Newspaper A's endorsement.' None. What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence. Ending them is a principled decision, and it's the right one. Eugene Meyer, publisher of The Washington Post from 1933 to 1946, thought the same, and he was right. By itself, declining to endorse presidential candidates is not enough to move us very far up the trust scale, but it's a meaningful step in the right direction. I wish we had made the change earlier than we did, in a moment further from the election and the emotions around it. That was inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy."
So far.... (Score:5, Informative)
The lack of an endorsement has cost the WaPo 200,000 subscriptions at last count.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's nowhere near as big a hit compared to a spiteful Trump cancelling his lucrative government cloud contracts.
Re:So far.... (Score:4, Funny)
He could also cancel the servers needed to run Truth Social. That would probably require opening a door and letting the hamster bolt into the woods out back.
Re:So far.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So far.... (Score:5, Informative)
That's nowhere near as big a hit compared to a spiteful Trump cancelling his lucrative government cloud contracts.
Or Bezos is hedging his bets with whatever he's trying to do with Blue Origin.
Bezos faces criticism after [Blue Origin] executives met with Trump on day of Post’s non-endorsement [theguardian.com]
Executives of Blue Origin briefly met with Trump within hours after paper spiked endorsement of Harris.
“Trump waited to make sure that Bezos did what he said he was going to do – and then met with the Blue Origin people,” [Robert] Kagan [WP editor-at-large and longtime columnist] told the Daily Beast on Saturday. “Which tells us that there was an actual deal made, meaning that Bezos communicated, or through his people, communicated directly with Trump, and they set up this quid pro quo.”
Some articles quote Bezos saying he didn't know about the meeting, but I'm dubious that would be so.
Re:So far.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any suggestions from Trump or his team to that effect would have been fine material to include in an endorsement of Harris.
Re: (Score:3)
You had a golden opportunity for "defenestrate" there.
Re: (Score:3)
That's nowhere near as big a hit compared to a spiteful Trump cancelling his lucrative government cloud contracts.
Sounds like Bezos realized that Trump is going to win next week. And he is going to win.
Not according to all the trends.
- Undecided voters that went for Trump in large numbers in previous elections? Largely going to Harris this time.
- Percentage of women vs men voting so far? Significantly more women than in previous elections.
- Republicans who have voted so far are almost all established voters; very few first-time voters turning in Republican ballots as of yet.
- The "Puerto Ricans are trash" fiasco is not only likely putting Pennsylvania solidly in the Blue column -- where it was already
Re: So far.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"During Trump's first term, I got a 20% pay raise and a big tax cut."
You got a tax cut that lasted two out of four of the years he was president, which he didn't renew. Have you forgotten already? Perhaps you have TDS.
Re:So far.... (Score:5, Insightful)
During Trump's first term, I got a 20% pay raise and a big tax cut. The last four years haven't been so good. Enough people are in that boat that they'll let slide some of the weird shit he says now that a cart of groceries costs $300.
If you wanna play anecdotes, I am currently making significantly more than what I made during Trump's administration. But, hey -- I obviously understand that a lot of people do not understand that the primary driver for inflation was the pandemic, and that Trump's handling (sic) of said pandemic greatly exacerbated said inflation.What I don't understand is how they don't remember that Trump's record on every single other metric by which one measures the economy was so abysmal compared to Obama before him and Biden after him.
Re:So far.... (Score:5, Interesting)
And during trump's term, my income went down for the first time since GWB's first recession in 2001. During trump's term I was laid off from a job for the first time since GWB's first recession in 2001. During Biden's term, my income recovered and now exceeds what it was before trump. I have my 1040s archived going back to 1998 to prove it. And, yes, I've run the math versus the inflation rates and my actual purchasing power is also higher now than it was during trump. As for supposed the tax "cut?" His "punish the blue states for not voting for me" shenanigans with exemptions and deductions led to me being double-taxed on part of my income; which ate up all of the savings.
So even if I were to ignore all ethics and integrity and and non-monetary harms and vote solely on pure cold-hearted greed, it's still in my best interest to see donnie the Hutt and his various minions, supplicants, and enablers cast out into the ash heap of history.
Re: (Score:3)
As Trump would say "WRONG!"
I'm keeping my Post subscription (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been a subscriber since 1999. I've seen the Post go through a period of declining quality. Thing like spelling errors. It improved when Bezos first bought the paper, then started to decline again. After Biden got elected Bezos really started putting the screws to the paper. Instead of having good journalists reporting from a neutral stance they started packing the paper with "Opinion" articles. A lot of those are written by right-leaning people, and they're not held accountable for being truthful. It's not just that they put spin on their position, they just plain lie.
So, if they paper is getting so bad you might ask why I'm not dropping my subscription. It's because I think Bezos wants to kill the paper. He wants to push anyone who's objective out of the newsroom and he wants to turn it into another right-wing rag. Undermining independent journalism isn't a consequence, its the point.
So I'm keeping my subscription to the Post. Instead, I'm cutting Prime and anything connected to Amazon.
Re:I'm keeping my Post subscription (Score:5, Interesting)
Undermining independent journalism isn't a consequence, its the point.
Independent journalism is thoroughly undermined at a newspaper the minute an ultra-billionnaire buys that newspaper. Quite frankly, if I were you, I'd have cancelled my subcription to the WaPo as soon as I learned Bezos bought it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: I'm keeping my Post subscription (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a remarkable oversimplification.
The editorial staff was doing their job, and they did it the exact same way they've picked any other candidate to endorse in the last 50 years: they had a discussion about it, debated it, voted on it, wrote the endorsement and the reasoning behind it, revised it, edited it, rewrote it, and then when they've all stacked hands and agreed to publish it, a billionaire owner spiked it because he wanted to obey an autocrat in advance of any actual threat.
So please tell us more about journalistic integrity when the journalists with integrity are being censored from publishing well reasoned opinion in the exact same manner they have for decades because the owner is afraid?
Re:I'm keeping my Post subscription (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd be less worried about their spelling errors than their thinking errors.
Re: (Score:2)
Not the lack of endorsement. No one cares if a newspaper endorses someone or not.
It was backstabbing your endorsed candidate by retracing your already prepared endorsement in the last minute.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The lack of an endorsement has cost the WaPo 200,000 subscriptions at last count.
If he truly wants a neutral newspaper that's trusted for bringing news without a bias, then that 200K is worth losing, like cutting a gangrenous limb off. Because those lost subscribers are mad that he's not pledged to their political team anymore, and their price of their patronage is the demand that the Post essentially be a mouthpiece for one political party.
Are things too far gone to win any kind of general trust? Probably. He should have done this as soon as he bought the paper. And Americans are so po
Re:So far.... (Score:5, Insightful)
But he obviously does *not* want that, as the WaPo, like every other newspaper, continues to print opinion pieces and editorials all the time, and indeed his own piece sharing his point of view was published in the comment pages.
Why people insist on treating obvious bad faith bullshit as good faith arguments is beyond me.
Re:So far.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Speaking of...
Americans are so polarized in this point of history...
Bezos used a past WaPo publisher as an example of this being the right decision. Eugene Mayer was "publisher of The Washington Post from 1933 to 1946", who did the same thing - declined to endorse a presidential candidate.
Guess what else happened around that time? WWII - 1939 - 1945
Is that the parallel he meant to draw?
Re:So far.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Swing and a miss.
They aren't pissed that WaPo didn't endorse Harris. They are pissed that they were going to endorse Harris, and a billionaire owner said "no" because he's afraid.
This is the newspaper that brought down Nixon. And now they're cowering in the corner saying "please don't hurt me." THAT is why they are shedding subscribers by the 100k.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, STFU. Canadian acquaintances of mine assure me that most Democrats in office would fit quite comfortably... in their CONSERVATIVE TORY PARTY.
The mainstream media should have been calling TFG and the GOP (they are NOT "republicans") fascists long ago. And, for that matter, spent at least as much time on TFG's rapidly approaching senility. And before you say a word, as someone in their seventies who pays attention to their health, I know that his slurring words, and occasional lisping are signs of multipl
Re: (Score:3)
Rush Limbaugh said he would move to Costa Rica if Obama won.
Why didn't he?
Re:So far.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You know who satisfies for your mother, and it ain't your father.
Re:So far.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but the papers put this on the editorial page. That is, the news and the editorializing are kept distinct from each other. Most viewer realize this, you can have a Democrat leaning editor pushing his idea of who to vote for on page 16, but the Republican readers can trust the front page to be accurate.
EXCEPT in the case of Fox where for some reason they make sure every news story is editorialized. And in campaign season every story is given a campaign tinge. They can't claim that the sky is blue without also calling it liberal. If there was a fire they need to blame it on someone. If a war breaks out in Westeros then the administration clearly was involved. It is for this reason that the conservative bias in Fox is a much bigger problem than the liberal bias in ABC, because ABC knows how to keep its underwear and shirts in different drawers.
Re: So far.... (Score:3, Informative)
"There is definitely a liberal bias in the mainstream media. There is definitely a Right-wing bias at select outlets like Fox"
Fox owns more media outlets than anyone else. They ARE the MSM.
They are counting on you being unable to count so that you believe that they are not.
So far their bet on your stupidity is paying off.
Re: So far.... (Score:3)
You keep saying stupid shit that is a gift to them, so it's hard to believe you're not trying to help them. Are you just saying you don't know shit about shit so we shouldn't pay you any attention?
Re: (Score:3)
The chief difference is that mainsteam media was leaning slightly left, but put in good faith efforts to let both sides of an issue be heard (often more than was necessary). Whereas Fox in response to this small bias explicitly let it be known, not a secret, that they would be biased strongly to the right.
The rest of the media really isn't even as left leaning as conservatives think as they seem to be deliberately ignoring bad news from the Trump side, like not reporting on the cognitive issues that Trump
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is spiking the endorsement that the editorial staff discussed, debated, wrote, edited, revised, and finally approved "pulling his hand off the scale"?
It's censorship, and meddling with the process that has served the Washington Post for 50 years. It's kicking the scale over.
Re: (Score:3)
ChatGPT's response didn't include radio which is still considerably more popular than podcasts and where rightwing shows & pundits have a huge presence
Re: (Score:3)
Or, another way to view this event: newspaper subscribers aren't interested in subscribing to a newspaper where the owner can kill any story they like on a whim.
That's not news - that's propaganda. And people usually aren't interested in buying propaganda, unless it's coming from News Corporation.
It's the right call (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's the right call (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know why it's the wrong time. Any time for this move is okay. Just do it.
I cannot find fault with this. I've never understood why ostensibly balanced media needs to opine or endorse. Let the entertainment hacks pipe up.
It's not the right call (Score:5, Insightful)
If Bezos were telling the truth — and clearly, he's not — he would see to it that the paper had no "opinion" section. You know, so it could make an honest attempt at reporting the news instead of trying to influence people by publishing the opinions and reasoning of various movers and shakers.
But he's not doing that. He's taking one action: keeping the stated and clear opinion of the paper's editorial crew (which has been openly stated outside the paper's environs as favoring Kamala Harris by the editorial crew) from being printed in the paper.
It's a completely transparent implementation of a pro-Trump move.
And as far as tradition goes, opinion sections have been, and remain, ubiquitous across almost every newspaper out there.
Bezos is a chump making a douche move.
Re:It's not the right call (Score:4, Insightful)
If Bezos were telling the truth — and clearly, he's not — he would see to it that the paper had no "opinion" section. You know, so it could make an honest attempt at reporting the news instead of trying to influence people by publishing the opinions and reasoning of various movers and shakers.
The "Opinion" section is not a problem, opinion is not news. The problem is the "News" section is now "Opinion"
Re: (Score:2)
> I don't know why it's the wrong time. Any time for this
> move is okay. Just do it.
It is very much the wrong time to do it. Have you ever read any of those guidelines as to how judges (Who all-too-often ignore them. But that's another discussion.) are ethically (unfortunately, not legally) obligated to recuse themselves from a case not just if there is, in fact, a conflict of interest; but also in any case where there may even be the appearance of impropriety. This one of those cases, but in the ne
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about, “ostensibly balanced media”? The print media has never claimed to be balanced. The literal point of comment pages is to put forth points of view. You are confusing news reporting and opinion pages. And the commitment of news reporting is not to balance — it’s, ostensibly, to *truth*. You know, “speaking truth to power”; “without fear or favour”; etc.
Balance means “on the one hand, on the other hand”. Truth means “
Re:It's the right call (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. If he announced this an year in advance, it would have been seen as policy, now it looks political.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
By having the owner, who is obviously politically motivated to support Donald Trump, block the endorsement he has permanently and obviously tainted the newspapers reliability. Not that it wasn't already in question with all the sane washing of Donald Trump but now every single story we have to question how much of
Re: It's the right call (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If they're going to do 'independent' opinion pieces at all, they shouldn't just quietly cancel any that disagree with Bezos. If it's going to just be what Bezos wants to say, he should stand up and put his name on it rather than cowering behind a claim of "new policy".
Note that they have done "independent" opinion pieces for over a century.
Re: (Score:2)
I would prefer if they didn't. But if it's within a system where there is a multitude of differently opinionated outlets, it may be even more balanced over all that trying or pretending to be unbiased.
It's a matter of culture.
As long paper and soot is cheap and widely available, everyone can start their own newspaper and put his own opinion in it.
TV or radio stations? Only available to a few, so that should stay neutral. (or at least balanced)
Re: (Score:2)
Anytime but right after polls showing that your candidate may not be a safe bet.
Cutting your support when it is needed the most never looks good.
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious...when, exactly, would be the right time in your opinion?
Uh, not five minutes before the endorsement was going to press.
I know he's a busy guy and all, but I'm sure he had 30 seconds to write an 'I don't believe this paper should endorse a candidate' email at some point during the past six months. It's not like this whole 'presidential election' thing sneaked up on him...
Re:It's the right call (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
And nobody should be listening to either religion or the media. But that only works in Ideal World, which is next to Physics Land and Math Land.
Re: (Score:2)
Opinion pieces have always been a part of the news.
Re: (Score:3)
A newspaper's job is to give you facts
You may think so, but the value goes the other way. A newspaper does not exist to give *you* value - it exists to give value to its owners. Monetary, politically, and/or otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you just started reading the news or you just started thinking.
Re:You're only saying that (Score:5, Insightful)
Shame is a tool we as a society have used since the dawn of mankind. Having shame encourages people to do things like brushing their teeth and telling the truth. Donald Trump isn't media-savvy, our media just doesn't have the tools necessary to deal with someone who doesn't care whether or not people will believe them tomorrow.
It is stupidly, painfully obvious that Trump is a poor candidate for our nation's highest office. This is no longer a hypothetical - we know what a Trump administration would look like. He showed us. He's told us about his future plans. A person would have to be willfully ignorant - some might call that stupidity - to believe otherwise. You can't say "Trump speaks his mind" and then defend what he says with "That's not what he meant" and expect grown people to take you seriously.
People should feel guilty about saying they believe one way and then acting hypocritically. Calling themselves Christian while insisting we should deport people who are here pursuing a better life just like our ancestors that settled the lands we now occupy. It goes with shame in encouraging people to be philosophically and ethically consistent. What a person shouldn't feel guilt about is existing as a gay person or wanting to alter their consciousness.
This "need to be right" is called having a coherent worldview and epistemology and understanding how coherent thought is a keystone of any decent civilization/society. It's OK to be wrong - I've been wrong a lot - but I'm confused how the desire to be correct in thought, word, and deed is somehow a character flaw.
Have some self respect and reflect about why you're wrong about all of this.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I fully believe Luckyo is a high earner who has a sucker wife who married him for stability or else he pays for a lot of hookers.
At the very least he'd get himself a russian mail order bride since he loves all things russia and badly wishes that putin would cross the finnish border and dominate him personally.
So unfortunately Luckyo is not as lonely as he deserves to be but we all know whatever the reasons for that are incredibly pathetic.
So far off (Score:4, Interesting)
Dirt bag explains his dirtbaggery. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's fear Trump will be elected and Bezos will become a target of his wrath.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dirt bag explains his dirtbaggery. (Score:4, Interesting)
Please, Trump?
"Lock her up" Trump? "Give the FBI a beautiful new building" Trump?
Domestically, based on public information, setting yourself against Trump has very few consequences ( he's a pussy ). Bezos is right; trust in the media is at an all time low, and it's not because politicians attack it. It's because politicians are seen as MORE credible than the media. It's a very dangerous place to be, so trying to go back to the basics of actual unbiased reporting is a very good idea.
Whether that can succeed in today's hyper-partisan world, starting with a rag with absolutely no credibility left to it's name, remains to be seen.
Re:Dirt bag explains his dirtbaggery. (Score:5, Informative)
Please, Trump?
"Lock her up" Trump? "Give the FBI a beautiful new building" Trump?
Domestically, based on public information, setting yourself against Trump has very few consequences ( he's a pussy ). Bezos is right; trust in the media is at an all time low, and it's not because politicians attack it. It's because politicians are seen as MORE credible than the media. It's a very dangerous place to be, so trying to go back to the basics of actual unbiased reporting is a very good idea.
Whether that can succeed in today's hyper-partisan world, starting with a rag with absolutely no credibility left to it's name, remains to be seen.
You haven't been paying attention.
Trump spent his first term desperately trying to prosecute his political enemies [nytimes.com]. The DOJ held firm and refused. The Senate constrained who he could get appointed, and the people he appointed refused (which is why the plans this time involve a much bigger purge and instalment of Trump loyalists).
If Trump wins this time, you will definitely see blatantly political investigations and prosecutions of prominent Democrats, and you will probably see serious attempts to push negative media off the air.
No WaPo endorsement (Score:2)
sure seems to have an effect on the future of the WaPo.
Brilliant timing Bezos. (Score:5, Insightful)
It does nothing to engender trust. When met with the choice of a black woman, or a self-worshipping asshole that's publicly promised to give you and your ilk massive tax breaks, you suddenly decide it's not the right time to endorse a candidate. How wonderfully modern of you. How illuminated. How "trust" worthy.
While on the surface, what he says makes sense, I get the feeling the timing of this isn't driven by a desire to appear more "unbiased." I'm sorry, it's absolutely a cop-out to step back now, when it feels like we're actually deciding between full-blown oligarch driven fascism, and "maybe this one won't bend us directly over the barrel." Not bias? Bias? Who cares. You're bowing out on playing a part in *NOT* being Trumpistan. Fuck you, Bezos.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When met with the choice of a black woman, or a self-worshipping asshole .
Does her being black give her some special virtue or qualification for office?
Re:Brilliant timing Bezos. (Score:5, Insightful)
When met with the choice of a black woman, or a self-worshipping asshole .
Does her being black give her some special virtue or qualification for office?
No, it shouldn't have any bearing at all, but there are a *LOT* of folks in this country absolutely losing their shit over the possible of electing another non-white to the office of president. I think it's idiotic that we have to tolerate such asinine behavior, but that's the joys of living in a free society. You're free to be a complete asshole. Just realize that I'm also free to see that those folks are being complete assholes.
Re:Brilliant timing Bezos. (Score:5, Interesting)
I haven't talked to anyone like that since I stopped working at the RV shop. Now I work in an office environment* that is downright woke to the max. It is absolutely fucking lovely. Nobody is trying to make anyone feel bad. Everyone is in fact trying to help everyone else all of the time. I had a lot of fun at the RV shop but I also had to deal with a lot of unsavory characters who in fact were openly racist, including my boss. He was a pretty mild case, but it would manifest to the point that he felt he had to complain to me on a semi-regular basis. I suspect a lot of it had to do with his lunch habits, and beverage choices.
A ton of the customers there, unaware that I am a notable fraction "hispanic" (through Mexico, but it's unclear exactly where else prior to that) would mouth off about all sorts of people on a racial basis. I wouldn't say it was a majority, but it was a majority of a certain type. This is farm country, and there was a lot of trailer work done there. I've had to clean shit off of a number of surfaces (often including my shoes, or my self) in the process of doing some electrical work on a cattle trailer or whatnot. And I've heard a lot of racist shit from a bunch of old rednecks whose families settled here long enough ago that they were probably shooting at the natives.
They say you absorb your environment, but I'm allergic to that kind of garbage. It makes me break out in fuck thats.
* I am remote four days now which is even nicer than going to an office full of nice polite people all week, but we chat a lot using teams, ugh
Re: (Score:3)
No, it shouldn't have any bearing at all, but there are a *LOT* of folks in this country absolutely losing their shit over the possible of electing another non-white to the office of president.
Are there? I haven't talked to anyone like that, although I don't have any friends who lean that way.
I live in the midwest. These bastards are everywhere here. I'm just glad most of the really egregiously bad ones have retired. I used to hate coming to work and listening to them rant about how "those people" should just be happy we're allowing them to work plant jobs.
No, I'm not making that up. I wish I was.
Re:Brilliant timing Bezos. (Score:4, Insightful)
However, there are (sadly) still quite a few people who would consider being black or being female to be more disqualifying than being a self-worshipping asshole. You will typically hear them say things like "I would never vote for that woman" or "Nobody wants that woman to be president."
If you ask people which is worse (a) being black, (b) being a woman, or (c) being a self-worshipping asshole and they chose something other than the last answer, it says nothing about black women and everything about the respondent. Now that's not to say that everyone voting for the self-worshipping asshole is doing so due to racism or misogyny. It seems that, in this election, many are voting (as they often do) for the candidate they perceive will lower taxes the most or any other myriad of reasons. And, thanks to their big tent coalition with the misogynists and racists, the tax cut block is looking to have pretty good odds of electing their candidate.
But none of that has to due with a ridiculous assertion that being a black female is some sort of special qualification. I'm here shaking my head.
Re: (Score:3)
The Donald Trump of today is the same self-worshipping asshole as he was in 2016 when WP endorsed Biden. As far as policies go, Harris and Biden are nearly indistinguishable. So the biggest thing that changed between 2016 and 2020 is the race
Re: (Score:2)
don't forget the LA Times is also under fire for refusing to endorse. I do find it interesting that the same whiners mad that WAPO wont endorse a candidate are all too quick to condemn the asshats you read about that wear MAGA clothing to a polling station and then react like children. I am in full support of neutral polling stations. I am also in support of rules saying political signs need to come down on election day. I do not believe they do anything to intimidate or sway an election, but the anonymous
Re: (Score:3)
No, but since "news" has been nothing but opinion pieces and bullshit for generations now, it's absolutely aggravating that *THIS* is the moment the big names refuse to endorse anyone. When it actually feels like it matters.
Trump committing political suicide, repeatedly, got him elected once. I don't want to see it happen again.
Re:Brilliant timing Bezos. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah yes, "normies" are "waking up" and joining with a man who somehow has survived dozens of instances of misconduct that would have doomed any other candidate from either political party. Cheating on his pregnant wife with a porn star, undermining our democracy with claims of mass voter fraud he has never had an ounce of evidence for, cozying to dictators while alienating our allies; there is nothing "normal" about this man's political survival.
Heaven help us if the Trump cult ever becomes what's "normal" for America.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, or not paying attention. Biden has not ONCE called Putin on the phone and had a chat. NOT ONCE called Kim Jong. NOT ONE GOD DAMN TIME! Obama either. Trump is the only guy with balls big enough to physically and in person walk into North Korea, and he got a lot of tensions eased when he did it!
As if a US president calling up the dictatorial leaders of adversarial nations for a "chat" is a normal thing. As if the president of the US calling up ANY world leaders for a "chat" is the end all be all of political engagement between nations.
The Untied States often snubs adversarial nations with things like this, particularly when they are in the midst of invading a Western democracy. That does not mean that we arent engaging with Russia diplomatically under his guidance though.
Re: (Score:3)
Putin is not backing down because if he does he will die.
There is no diplomatic solution with a guy in that position.
But these cuckservatives insist there can be, well not without giving away Ukraine. Are we part of NATO or not? Because if we are, we can't do that.
Well, we are. And the only people who are mad about it are Russians, and those who have swallowed Russian propaganda.
NATO is there specifically to contain Russia, which was calling the shots in the USSR. It doesn't matter that the Soviet Union fel
He is right (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Historically, the real bias of a particular mainstream news outlet is generally in the CHOICE of stories that they run or don't run, rather than in the content or the language of the stories themselves. A written article on the Fox News website is largely indistinguishable from one about the same subject on the MSNBC website. But one of them posts only the stories that make the other side look bad, and the other only posts stories that cast the first side in a bad light.
So these news outlets aren't untrus
He's not wrong (Score:2)
However, the way he's couching this as a principled stand is laughable. The timing makes it obvious he is brown nosing Trump, plain and simple. America is rushing headlong into an autocracy and Bez
Re:He's not wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I cancelled. (Score:2)
The timing says everything that he doesn't.
Of course there's bias. (Score:2)
"What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence."
Right, non-bias and true independence is impossible.
So why are you even pretending it's possible?
That's lying and deceiving the public.
Democracy is dependent on trust.
So be honest. Especially when one candidate is proven to be utterly incompetent and unqualified to hold the role. (Not to mention old and weird.)
And Jeff, it's probably safe to say the reason only ONE publisher in WaPo's history suppor
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a goal towards which you strive. Errare human est.
Something that far left activists rail against because they fundamentally reject the concept of "discussion" and "argument". As far left ideology states that there is only power and combat between groups. So language is merely one of the tools of war in intersectional groups warfare. And it is their holy duty to make sure that as many such weapons are in the hands of their group, rather than any of the opposing ones.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So be honest. Especially when one candidate is proven to be utterly incompetent and unqualified to hold the role. (Not to mention old and weird.)
Oh come on, that's not fair. Kamala is what, 60?
Re: (Score:2)
It depends (Score:5, Informative)
In the 19th century US newspapers generally didn't pretend to be politically neutral - there are still hundreds of US papers with the words "Democrat" or "Republican" in their name, from that era.
At the time each paper had a political viewpoint and was proud of it. In such cases political endorsements make perfect sense.
In the 20th century the press decided that it should be neutral and objective, and not take sides - just report the news.
If you're trying to do THAT, you should be consistent and not take sides - let your reader decide.
In the 21st century, most of the media seems to have decided that they're going to take sides but pretend that they're objective.
It's not really about that. (Score:2)
The internet whiners have no credibility (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Elon Musk is awful (says everyone complaining about internet access in rural areas, or complaining about internal combustion automobiles).
Yeah, it's almost as if blatant antisemitism, the pushing of far right conspiracy theories, or any one of a number of negative social interactions Musk has had over the last decade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. has ruined Musk's image for some.
The real question for me is why you think someone who pushes Replacement Theory https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com] is a good guy we should all respect.
It's About Independence - Not the Endorsement (Score:5, Insightful)
If the editorial board of the WaPo had collectively decided to stop doing endorsements, I might disagree with that decision, but it wouldn't cause me to fundamentally question the integrity of the newspaper. The problem is that Jeff Bezos personally interfered with the editorial decision of the newspaper after specifically promising he would not interfere with its content when he bought the paper. Once Bezos is personally making editorial calls, then it's no longer a newspaper so much as Bezos' personal newsletter. There is no point in paying money for such a thing.
Imagine MLB saying No World Series winner in 24 (Score:2)
Then I have two follow-up questions to Bezos... (Score:3)
#1 Then why don't you just have them if they do no harm?
#2 Why did you have them vor 50 years if they do no good either?
And of course the still unanswered bonus question: Why haven't you noticed that until a week before the election?
It may indeed not matter if you do it or don't (*) but pulling out a few days before you may endorse the "wrong" candidate is showing fear.
(*) no newspaper would come out with an open endorsement over here, but that's a matter of culture and tradition
I got so upset about this that I stoipped twitter (Score:2)
Hey,
I got so upset by his decision that I called the amazing triumvirat of Bezos, Musk and Trump as fascists and wished death and destruction.
Well my twitter account got supended for inciting violence.
And now I am too lazy to jump through the hoops to get it unblocked.
I think that's a good thing, no?
If Linus endorsed a candidate (Score:3)
But the opposite did something (Score:3)
Bezos may claim an endorsement might not do nothing, but blocking the paper from endorsing certainly did something - his paper lost 200,000 subscribers because his interference. So great job Jeff, you just financially imperiled your newspaper and the people working there! I'm sure if they get laid off you'll blame everyone but yourself.
And quite obviously endorsement does do something - it shows a news paper has balls to endorse a candidate and lay out the case for readers. Maybe there are only a small % sitting on the fence but that article, if one was written, still has the potential to influence how people vote.
Worth the read (Score:2)
Greenwald for all his flaws makes really good points on journalism. And he said it best in this thread:
https://x.com/ggreenwald/statu... [x.com]
Also the actual op-ed itself is really worth reading, and it's very short. Worth a read, because all the far left activist brigading across this thread is trying to mischaracterize is at much as they can. It's linked in the OP.
It's uncomfortable knowing you're cowardly... (Score:2)
Bezo's motives (Score:2)
To be fair, Trump has threatened to turn the state on people who he deems his enemies. Like people who say things he doesn't like, or fail to do what he wants. It's not the paper Bezos is worried about, it's everything else Trump might go after if he doesn't like what Bezo's paper has to say.
He cares more about his money than people (otherwise we wouldn't have so many horror stories about Amazon), which is why he didn't throw his wealth behind Kamala's campaign. Instead, he's protecting his money.
This is
He should have done it a year ago (Score:2)
Or some time when there were not major elections coming in the next few weeks or months.
It would have been more credible. Now, with the editorial staff claiming to be positive about Kamala, and Bezos pulling the plug on an official endorsement, it creates an image that he wants to limit positive news about Kamala, just when the elections are happening (early voting already started in some places, hasn't it?).
Just a view from a random person who is not an American, from halfway across the world who follows t
Re: (Score:2)
“What makes a man turn neutral? A lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?”
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I sometimes wonder how much more insane people like this would be if current leadership would be Trump's, and situation was exactly the same it is today.
Consider lack of authorization to strike on Russian soil with long range fires, constant delays in aid, aid being delivered as very old hardware while being priced in modern replacements, etc. You'd think they believe Trump is in power with current policies and content of their screeching.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)