←back to thread

Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X

(www.theguardian.com)
243 points Jimmc414 | 2 comments | 13 Nov 24 20:58 UTC | HN request time: 0.523s | source
Show context
seydor ◴[13 Nov 24 21:53 UTC] No.42130473[source]▶
Yann Lecun is also telling everyone on Twitter very loudly that he won't be posting on Twitter.

The Guardian in another article explains that they are annoyed because Musk used twitter to promote his preferred candidate.

The Guardian itself used their own platform to publicly endorse Harris.

This deja-vu of childish antics is just comical in 2024

replies(18): >>42130525 #>>42130571 #>>42130597 #>>42130616 #>>42130620 #>>42130694 #>>42130705 #>>42130752 #>>42130802 #>>42130828 #>>42130857 #>>42130892 #>>42130907 #>>42131498 #>>42131663 #>>42131841 #>>42132444 #>>42134987 #
grahamj ◴[13 Nov 24 22:02 UTC] No.42130571[source]▶
I think it's much more reasonable for a news outlet to have a political opinion than a social platform.
replies(3): >>42130590 #>>42130695 #>>42131514 #
gjsman-1000[dead post] ◴[13 Nov 24 22:04 UTC] No.42130590[source]▶
[flagged]
pm90 ◴[13 Nov 24 22:13 UTC] No.42130703[source]▶
Endorsements for political candidates are done via the editorial boards which are different from the newsrooms. The editorial boards of news organizations have always had opinions and publish them as such. There is nothing problematic with this approach.
replies(1): >>42130729 #
1. gjsman-1000 ◴[13 Nov 24 22:15 UTC] No.42130729[source]▶
> There is nothing problematic with this approach.

A. You assume the editorial board does not have a significant influence over the newsrooms. By endorsing a candidate, they demonstrate which direction the pressure on the newsroom is coming from.

B. This was not why freedom of the press was granted. I was not arguing whether it is a good or bad thing now; merely that this was directly opposed to the role envisioned for them.

replies(1): >>42134785 #
2. ywvcbk ◴[14 Nov 24 10:23 UTC] No.42134785[source]▶
> This was not why freedom of the press was granted

Not about this specific point but people making these decisions back in the 1700s and 1800s were at least as flawed as us (arguably much more) and made some extremely horrible/stupid choices in hindsight.

Treating them as effectively infallible religious figures is well.. just that.

Especially if we consider that the interpretation of what freedom of speech (and press) meant was extremely narrow by modern standards well into the late 1800s and beyond.