Elections Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris, paper reports

[avenue94]

Bezos did not instruct the editors to print an opinion in contradiction to what they desired.

Which is why I noted the difference between doing this transparently and consistently, as opposed to on a whim for selfish gain.

Yes, I have worked at a newspaper. Have you?

Yup, most of my first decade of work was split between alt weeklies and one of the larger legacy publications left around back then. What role were you in where you saw the business side of the paper have a say in day to day editorial decisions? I've done two rounds of election endorsement cycles, and any publisher who sat in on an endorsement was expected to keep their mouth shut and look pretty.

Again, I'm struggling to think of instances where a publisher/owner spiked an endorsement editorial at the larger newspapers recently. Feel free to provide examples.

I am educated in the ethics of journalism. I doubt that you are.

Please tell me then. What are the journalism ground rules for business side vs editorial (newsroom or opinion)? I've never seen a code of conduct at a newspaper that didn't separate those realms. Have you?

 

[west42]

So what are we going with here? A fascist attack on American democracy because Jeff bezos decided not to endorse harris?

 

[Andy Capp]

It's a newspaper, ask yourselves if you really care about this endorsement. Obviously the technocrats see the writing on the wall

Ask yourself if that's the point here.

 

[Madmick]

Which is why I noted the difference between doing this transparently and consistently, as opposed to on a whim for selfish gain.

What was the selfish gain?

 

[mommas homeboy]

But I thought the democrats control the media

They do. But Bezos money is better served by not endorsing Kamala, so he didn't.

 

[mommas homeboy]

The meltdown employees at the WaPo are having is delicious. Just a tiny taste of what's to come on Nov. 5th!!

 

[nostradumbass]

Yes it was. Read it again or get someone that could pass remedial English in High School to do it for you. Here you go from the article itself.


Obviously, it isn’t illegal, it is his corporation but it’s tacky, that’s all.

Sorry to hear that you got fired from Burger King for hitting on your teenage coworkers. The woke virus got them too entitled and employed that they are repulsed by obese middle aged “alpha” males like yourself.

Eitherway, best of luck with your employment situation and daddy issues, keep projecting them here and maybe they’ll fix themselves.

P.S. I hear McDonalds is hiring “bigly”, go get that job before a libtard takes it

Oof, trying the old "read it again" and then posting an excerpt that doesn't say what you thought it did. How embarrassing. Might want to read that back a few times until you get it. Staffers drafted an endorsement on behalf of a paper they don't own, and the owner told them the paper is not endorsing a candidate. Another swing and a miss.

And after embarrassing yourself again, you decided to go with a bannable ped accusation just months after your last account got banned. Lol, you're really handling this well.

 

[avenue94]

What was the selfish gain?

I'd imagine he's hedging his bets and trying to stay on Trump's goodish side in case he wins.

Please tell me then. What are the journalism ground rules for business side vs editorial (newsroom or opinion)? I've never seen a code of conduct at a newspaper that didn't separate those realms. Have you?

You also ducked the question. You say you've worked in print before, so what was the code of conduct like for business vs editorial?

 

[Captain Tenneal]

Ask yourself if that's the point here.

It is the point

Something so antiquated shouldn't endorse one side or the other. He wants subscribers no?

 

[Deleted member 585708]

Jeff Bezos killed​

Jesus Christ, thought I'd missed a pretty major news story for a second!

 

[Yoricks Wisdom]

What I’ve seen in general terms in the legacy media appears to be a gradual realization that Trump could win and the need to hedge their bets, protecting their interests by implying Harris ran a faulty campaign, etc.
When Katie Couric turns on you, you’re done.
Lol

 

[Madmick]

I'd imagine he's hedging his bets and trying to stay on Trump's goodish side in case he wins.

So pure speculation. You are presuming an assigning motivation based on your own political bias-- an allegation without evidence. As I already showed, to the contrary, the "business side" conflicting interest has a "precedent", since you like that word, and the precedent is it played no role in the immediate election after Bezos's enterprise was believed to be negatively affected by a Trump presidency.

I also wonder what Rosenstiel and Kovach would have to say about a newspaper that adorned its front page with a massive black header for years, "Democracy Dies in Darkness". This was not the editorial section. As anyone educated in ethics knows, a newspaper should eschew political bias in everyday coverage, and the appearance of partiality in political matters.

Suddenly the WaPo editors care about this. Cute.

 

[Rational Poster]

They do. But Bezos money is better served by not endorsing Kamala, so he didn't.

Interesting fanfiction kiddo

 

[jrams]

 

[avenue94]

So pure speculation

Why do you think he spiked the endorsement?

You are presuming an assigning motivation based on your own political bias-- an allegation without evidence.

What political bias am I basing my stance on?

As I already showed, to the contrary, the "business side" conflicting interest has a "precedent", since you like that word, and the precedent is it played no role in the immediate election after Bezos's enterprise was believed to be negatively affected by a Trump presidency.

What precedent? You claim to have worked for a newspaper but you refuse to explain what the code of conduct was at that paper. I've presented you with several points of why this conduct is inappropiraate and unusual and as what happens you realize you got nothing, you start deflecting and sticking your fingers in your ears.

also wonder what Rosenstiel and Kovach would have to say about a newspaper that adorned its front page with a massive black header for years, "Democracy Dies in Darkness". This was not the editorial section. As anyone educated in ethics knows, a newspaper should eschew political bias in everyday coverage, and the appearance of partiality in political matters.

Presumably they would think it might be a little melodramatic, but no different than all the various slogans that newspapers have opted to include over the years. Democracy Dies in Darkness is hardly a partisan statement in of itself and came from the business side. It wasn't a decision by the newsroom.

It's bene awhile since I've read The Elements of Journalism, but:

Principle 2: “A commitment to citizens is more than professional egoism. It is the implied covenant with the public…. The notion that those who report the news are not obstructed from digging up and telling the truth—even at the expense of the owners’ other financial interests—is a prerequisite of telling the news not only accurately but persuasively. It is the basis of why we as citizens believe in a news organization. It is the source of its credibility. It is, in short, the franchise asset of the news company and those who work in it.

Or another passage below:
The owner/corporation must be committed to citizens first….
Hire business managers who also put citizens first….
Set and communicate clear standards….
Journalists have final say over news….
Communicate clear standards to the public….

Or another goodie:
“…Being impartial or neutral is not a core principle of journalism. …impartiality was never what was meant by objectivity. …the critical step in pursing truthfulness and informing citizens is not neutrality but independence…."


I'm trying to understand, Rosenstiel and Kovach have a very clear stance that the business side of a newspaper should not interfere and should defer to journalists. What was your point in bringing them up? Like...do you actually read the work of people you try to name drop?

 

[Vergilius]

Blocking people from writing about their opinions is not suppressing speech now? Gotcha

There's a difference between "blocking people from writing their opinions" and blocking a newspaper from having an "official" view. They are not the same thing. Doesn't mean Bezos also doesn't do the former, but this is not evidence of that in and of itself.

 

[Deleted member 585708]

So pure speculation. You are presuming an assigning motivation based on your own political bias-- an allegation without evidence. As I already showed, to the contrary, the "business side" conflicting interest has a "precedent", since you like that word, and the precedent is it played no role in the immediate election after Bezos's enterprise was believed to be negatively affected by a Trump presidency.

I also wonder what Rosenstiel and Kovach would have to say about a newspaper that adorned its front page with a massive black header for years, "Democracy Dies in Darkness". This was not the editorial section. As anyone educated in ethics knows, a newspaper should eschew political bias in everyday coverage, and the appearance of partiality in political matters.

Suddenly the WaPo editors care about this. Cute.

I broadly agree with you, and don't see a problem with an attempt at non-partisan coverage, but that last line is pure gash I'm afraid.

Yes, they care, they are and have been working at that publication because they're comfortable with the messaging. Now they're not. They're not there just because they've got a nice job. You said you worked at a paper, so you know that already.

 

[Confucamus]

The meltdown over this is kinda hilarious. You see a lot of people on the left interpreting this as an endorsement of Trump but it actually doesn't have much to do with him. They didn't choose to endorse Trump. Harris is just THAT terrible of a candidate and a person that nobody wants to be remembered for supporting her.

 

[Andy Capp]

Jeff Bezos killed​

Jesus Christ, thought I'd missed a pretty major news story for a second!

And that's just the kind of Friday afternoon drug-addled response that assures me you're perfect for working with the clergy. Now, go find me another 11 votes and we can talk about it.

 

[avenue94]

The meltdown over this is kinda hilarious. You see a lot of people on the left interpreting this as an endorsement of Trump but it actually doesn't have much to do with him. They didn't choose to endorse Trump. Harris is just THAT terrible of a candidate and a person that nobody wants to be remembered for supporting her.

Your logic makes no sense. An endorsement from the editorial board is support from them, not the publisher or business side.