Hacker News Reader

Comment by jansan | Hacker News Reader

So you think they pay for a subscription to get independent journalism, but cancel that subscription if the independent newspaper does not endorse their candidate? That's funny, don't you think?

View on HN

The point isn't that they didn't endorse a particular candidate, it's that this decision was made in a way that was completely antithetical to independent journalism.

How is not endorsing a candidate “antithetical to independent journalism”? I understand that Bezos stepped in to perhaps overrule an endorsement but in what sense is maintaining neutrality antithetical to independent journalism?

The journalists obviously favour Kamala but were reined in by their capitalist master.

Have you read their coverage? This is not in evidence.

Admittedly not really. I was more going on their reputation of being left leaning.

That reputation is more or less fabricated in order to shield the right from genuine critic. WP is not very left-leaning, I would consider them center. It's just that in the past 8 or so years the right has gotten much more radical, so it doesn't always seem that way.

My take is that WaPo has been exceptionally gentle with Trump, not at all holding him to the same standards they held Biden and Harris. From headline framing, to article vocabulary, to count of articles, fact checking, to associated photos, they've treated Trump quite hospitably.

I do appreciate your honest reply! Thank you!

I didn't say not endorsing a candidate is antithetical to independent journalism. I said the way this decision was made was completely antithetical to independent journalism, i.e. the decision not to endorse was not made by journalists independently. Rather the opposite - the journalists' decision was overruled.

How is endorsing a candidate journalism? Sure journalists will have opinions on candidates, but that's not journalism. From what I've read this is from the opinion section of the paper, so it's not journalism in the classic sense anyway.

Independent journalism isn't "whatever journalists want". It means unbiased. Endorsing candidates is by definition biased. They were corrected in their ways because the editorial board became too biased.

they changed the policy of endorsing a candidate by fiat from above at the last minute before one of the most important elections in American history... do we really need to spell out for you how this isn't about endorsement but about how the decision played out?

Because it's a top-down decision from a multibillionaire. Doesn't scream "independent"

They cancel their subscription when the newspaper makes it clear they are no longer independent.

The Post won a Pulitzer for their coverage of Jan 6. The fact they were prevented from endorsing a candidate means Bezos didn’t want them to endorse Harris.

The 1619 Project won a Pulitzer, even though the book was full of factual errors on the border of lies and the hatred in the book is batshit crazy. So, I'm not sure how Pulitzer still means anything.

Anything can be funny without effort of thinking. It is funny for you, because you are skipping really short context: endorsement was already written. Owner of the newspaper dictating what can't be published means that it is not independent work is it?

Notably they can still endorse other candidates, and the specific candidate they were barred from to (not) endorsing has immense influence on the businesses run by the owner, and the owner was directly meeting with him. It seems like an obvious quid pro quo from Bezos to Trump, hence the outcry.

The key detail here is that the endorsement was quashed by the billionaire owner of the paper and not the editorial board. That undermines any sense of independence that people might have felt they were paying for.

The editor wanted the endorsement and got spiked by the billionaire owner after said owner's closed-door meeting with the other candidate. That's supposed to be journalistic independence?

Jeff Bezos intervened directly in what was promised to be an independent editorial process. That quite directly breaks the trust in both editorials and d news.

For me, it explained WaPo's very careful treatment of Trump's age, versus the aggressive treatment of Biden's age. So I cancelled. I can't trust editorial choice or news editing and framing from a media source where The Owner just busts in and changes things.

nobody wants independent journalism. never wanted. people want something that aligns with their point of view.

that's why streamers, podcasters and subgroups are so successful - you find like-minded folks there that agree with you. And that's why you often have forums and discord groups that literally ban people left and right.

It has always been the case.

Well yes but even in the good old days papers certainly had a colour.

reminds me of this https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gawc7-sXwAAHPaR?format=jpg&name=...

> nobody wants independent journalism. never wanted

This is too cynical. I know I do. I don't even mind biased analysis or perspective as I believe everyone has their perspectives grounded on certain assumptions or "biases". But it does pains me to see that journalists would rather invent hoaxes than reporting facts. It also pains me to see that all medias simultaneously use the same peculiar phases like "testy interview" or "sharp as tack", which does seem imply outside influence to the journalists.

> nobody wants independent journalism

I stopped reading after that. What a bizarre take

Reply on news.ycombinator.com