Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, October 29, 2024

We have unhappy news: Jeff Bezos thinks you are an idiot. Don't feel too bad, though, because he thinks we are idiots, too. Facing a rebellion from the staff of The Washington Post, not to mention an exodus of subscribers, he published an op-ed yesterday explaining why he spiked the paper's endorsement of Kamala Harris. In short, it was about integrity:

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

We have unhappy news: Jeff Bezos thinks you are an idiot. Don't feel too bad, though, because he thinks we are idiots, too. Facing a rebellion from the staff of The Washington Post, not to mention an exodus of subscribers, he published an op-ed yesterday explaining why he spiked the paper's endorsement of Kamala Harris. In short, it was about integrity:

We must be accurate, and we must be believed to be accurate. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but we are failing on the second requirement. Most people believe the media is biased. Anyone who doesn't see this is paying scant attention to reality, and those who fight reality lose. Reality is an undefeated champion. It would be easy to blame others for our long and continuing fall in credibility (and, therefore, decline in impact), but a victim mentality will not help. Complaining is not a strategy. We must work harder to control what we can control to increase our credibility.

Presidential endorsements do nothing to tip the scales of an election. 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.

The thing is, there actually is a reasonable argument here. Newsrooms across the nation concern themselves, on a regular basis, with how much they should be "making" the news, whether in the form of endorsements, or high-profile confrontations at press conferences, or voting on sports awards, or whatever. However, in Bezos' case, he is arguing in bad faith, because he's responding to a bad faith argument, and he damn well knows it. The right-wingers who claim "bias" are really just saying "we don't like negative coverage of our candidate(s)." There is absolutely no chance they are going to be assuaged, certainly not by killing one single editorial.

#1 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-29 09:04 AM | Reply

Indeed, as far as "integrity" goes, Bezos did about as much damage on that front as is humanly possible. Now, with very good reason, it looks like the line between "business" and "editorial" (and there's no more important line in the newspaper business) does not exist at the Post, and the money men (well, money man) will dictate coverage decisions from here on out. After all, the money man just did that very thing. How can a reader have confidence in any future stories about Trump OR Harris, not to mention myriad other subjects? If the Post writes a story critical of Wal-Mart, is that on the level, or is it really just a press release for Amazon? If the Post has a negative report on SpaceX, is it a legit news story, or is it really just a press release for Blue Origin?

#2 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-29 09:04 AM | Reply

The Washington Post is just a hobby for Bezos, using it to push his agenda.

Anyone who wants to rein Bezos in will have to hit him where it hurts: stop ordering from Amazon and cancel their Amazon Prime memberships. And that's not likely to happen.

#3 | Posted by censored at 2024-10-29 09:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Every billionaire in America has a picture of Mikhail Khodorkovsky hanging on the back of the door to their bathroom. It is guaranteed to keep them regular, especially if they see themselves in that picture should Trump win again.

#4 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-29 10:06 AM | Reply

Trust in the media is at historic all time low. He is smart to try to change course.

#5 | Posted by BellRinger at 2024-10-29 03:24 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#5 | Posted by JeffJ

Are you, or are you not, the Drudge Retort poster known as JeffJ, who was thrown off of the Retort and had to come crawling back as "Bellringer"?
Are you brave enough to respond?

Or, are you just a typical MAGA coward?

(JeffJ has me plonked. So, while he can't see my posts, I can see his. And everyone else can see this response... but he can't! Which means he won't respond, making him look like he really is JeffJ! - lather, rinse, repeat...)

#6 | Posted by Hans at 2024-10-29 03:25 PM | Reply

Trust in the media is at historic all time low. He is smart to try to change course.

Here ya go. Take a look and see if you can figure it out:
today.yougov.com

#7 | Posted by YAV at 2024-10-29 03:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Bezos Tries to Defend the Indefensible"

Just like our Stinkerbell!

#8 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-10-29 03:37 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Washington Post cancellations hit 250,000 - 10% of subscribers

amp.theguardian.com

What Bezos failed to take into consideration is, Republicans don't read newspapers. Preferring to get all their information from X and Facebook memes.

#9 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-10-29 04:12 PM | Reply

Canceled. Account deleted.

Just like Fakebook Xitter and Tic Tok.

Your Bad Guy AI algorithms will just have to find another way to get to me.

#10 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-10-29 04:14 PM | Reply

Americans continue to register record-low trust in the mass media, with 31% expressing a "great deal" or "fair amount" of confidence in the media to report the news "fully, accurately and fairly," similar to last year's 32%. Americans' trust in the media -- such as newspapers, television and radio -- first fell to 32% in 2016 and did so again last year.

For the third consecutive year, more U.S. adults have no trust at all in the media (36%) than trust it a great deal or fair amount. Another 33% of Americans express "not very much" confidence.

-Gallup

#11 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-10-29 04:23 PM | Reply

"Gallup first asked this question in 1972 and has measured it in most years since 1997. In three readings in the 1970s, trust ranged from 68% to 72%, yet by Gallup's next readings in the late 1990s and early 2000s, smaller majorities of 51% to 55% trusted the news media."

Old people loved being spoon fed news. They just bicker over the source.

Everybody that's not old... that's something else.

#12 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-10-29 04:24 PM | Reply

"For the third consecutive year, more U.S. adults have no trust at all in the media (36%) than trust it a great deal or fair amount. Another 33% of Americans express "not very much" confidence."

That's by design.

#13 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2024-10-29 04:33 PM | Reply

"For the third consecutive year, more U.S. adults have no trust at all in the media (36%) than trust it a great deal or fair amount. Another 33% of Americans express "not very much" confidence."

Babblefish Translation-

64% trust it a great deal
77% have confidence

Let's see 36%and 33%. Those numbers seem familiar.

Ah yes. Here it is. That's basically the same size as Trumpy's rabid base.

#14 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-10-29 04:38 PM | Reply

That's by design.

#13 | POSTED BY SCHIFFERBRAINS

20-30 years of hateful propaganda and calling them the enemy of the people and the enemy within apparently has had some effect.

#15 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-10-29 04:41 PM | Reply

64% trust it a great deal

#14 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-10-29 04:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

31% trust it a great deal, or fair amount.
33% do not have a great deal, nor fair amount, aka a low amount of trust
36% have zero trust in it.

That's abysmal, but that's what you get with ad driven news.

#16 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-10-29 04:46 PM | Reply

Pretending the 31% and 33% are similar and adding them together is the kind of thing a shady news outlet for partisans would do.

#17 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2024-10-29 04:47 PM | Reply

That's abysmal, but that's what you get with ad driven news.
#16 | Posted by sitzkrieg

But ad driven news has had better numbers, no?

My guess is the news has grown into political propaganda at this point.

There are unbiased news sites, but each side denigrates them as unreliable sources.

#18 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-10-29 04:57 PM | Reply

There are unbiased news sites, but each side denigrates them as unreliable sources.

#18 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

Welcome to the Information Age and the influence of AI algorithms.

You think you think independently? Ha! You think that AI dominating humans is way off into the future? ha!

We are all already being influenced and even controlled by AI algorithms.

Happy extinction!!

The "Singularity" cannot be stopped.

#19 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-10-29 05:06 PM | Reply

Pretending the 31% and 33% are similar and adding them together is the kind of thing a shady news outlet for partisans would do.

#17 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

I was trying to figure out what those numbers really meant.

Throwing random stats out there from 20 years ago with no sources or verified studies for us to refer to so one could try and understand what those stats really mean is exactly what a right wing partisan news outlet would do.

#20 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-10-29 05:22 PM | Reply

250,000 cancellations
at a minimum of $120/year

$30,000,000 per year (at a minimum)

#21 | Posted by truthhurts at 2024-10-29 05:39 PM | Reply

@#18 ... There are unbiased news sites ...

Care to post a list of some of them?

#22 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-10-29 06:36 PM | Reply

@#22

OK, in response to the apparent crickets, I'll post this link...

Interactive Media Bias Chart
adfontesmedia.com

One thing i notice from that chart is that the site The Hill now seems to be in the ~slightly left~ area, rather than the ~slightly right~ area it had been placed.

Why is that?

Is The Hill eschewing the current GOP lies?

Is that media bias chart now showing that in order to be right-leaning a site has to embrace the Republican lies?


#23 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-10-29 08:20 PM | Reply


fwiw ...

Methodology
adfontesmedia.com

...
Q: How, exactly, do your analysts rate articles and episodes?

We have a team of over 60 analysts rating articles and episodes all day, every day. In our current process, we rate most articles during live shifts (on Zoom) with three analysts (one left, one right, one center), and after each article, analysts see each other's scores and resolve discrepancies when possible. If significant discrepancies remain, the articles are rerated by a second balanced panel.

The type of rating we ask each analyst to provide is an overall coordinate ranking on the chart (i.e., "40, -12"). The rating methodology is rigorous and rule-based. There are many specific factors we take into account for both reliability and bias because there are many measurable indicators of each. The main ones for Reliability are defined metrics we call "Expression," "Veracity," and "Headline/Graphic," and the main ones for Bias are ones we call "Political Position," "Language," and "Comparison." There are several other factors we consider for certain articles. Therefore, the ratings are not simply subjective opinion polling, but rather methodical content analysis. Overall source ratings are composite weighted ratings of the individual article and show scores.

We continue to refine our methodology as we discover ways to have analysts classify rating factors more consistently. Our analysts use our software platform called CART"Content Analysis Rating system.

Educators and individuals can learn how to rate news articles like Ad Fontes Media. Our courses include detailed video and written explanations of the factors we use to rate articles. ...



#24 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-10-29 08:23 PM | Reply

Bezos is a multibillionaire who is still too grotesque to be seen in public.

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-10-29 08:24 PM | Reply

@#25 ... Bezos is a multibillionaire who is still too grotesque to be seen in public. ...

I'm not there yet.

He is a multi-billionaire. I'm on board with that aspect.

But he seems to want to affect public opinion without standing up and defending his reasons. And, yes, I did read his, imo, lame attempt to justify what he has done to the WaPo editorial board.

Shameful.



#26 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-10-30 03:41 AM | Reply

"The swamp is a very dangerous place at night."

#27 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2024-10-30 06:48 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort