7 ms·

Laurene Powell Jobs’s Organization to Take Majority Stake in The Atlantic

91 points by zonotope 9y ago

BooneJS 9y ago
I'm curious if Bezos and Powell Jobs got into media as an investment or as philanthropy? With the current state of the industry I'd believe the latter before the former.
- rfrank 9y ago
  Activism. I'm curious why downvoters think their acquisitions aren't a form of activism. For instance, their coverage of an Amazon monopoly is very sparse, even given the recent Democratic economic policy statements which mention monopolies frequently. Billionaires wanting to control the press isn't exactly a shocking idea. Is buying a newspaper and controlling their output more or less offensive than Theil's funding the Gawker suit? 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/11/at-this-point-amazon-really-might-as-well-just-buy-the-postal-service/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/11/at-th... 2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/15/stop-amazon-really/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... 3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/amazon-isnt-technically-dominant-but-it-pervades-our-lives/2017/07/19/977df402-6cb2-11e7-abbc-a53480672286_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/amazon-isnt-technica... 4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/30/amazon-wants-to-send-stuff-before-you-order-it-are-other-retailers-doomed/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/30/amazo... 5. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/is-amazon-getting-too-big/2017/07/28/ff38b9ca-722e-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/is-amazon-getting-to...
  - lawnchair_larry 9y ago
    There is no question that this is the reason. Many billionares have sought to control the public narrative by buying media outlets. It's easily the most effective way to ensure that their personal views are served up to the public. Same reason that Putin started RT.
  - pvg 9y ago
    How do any of these links demonstrate that Bezos is controlling the Washington Post's output?
    - rfrank 9y ago
      To me, saying "Bezos doesn't influence Wapo's output" is like saying, "Oculus will remain an independent entity inside Facebook." Not something I'm inclined to believe. Why should one believe that the billionaire (and new richest man in the world) at the helm of a major monopoly isn't influencing WaPo's content?
      - pvg 9y ago
        "I don't believe it" is not very convincing evidence. Oculus and the Post are not really comparable, nobody (statistically) cares how independent Oculus is. Even if you want to look at this from a purely business perspective - editorial independence is part of the product. It's also what ensures you can attract real journalists.
        rfrank 9y ago
        That's the evidence you've presented against my assertion, as neither of us would know the real answer. My links above could be perceived as control because a predominantly left wing paper is defensive of a company who runs afoul of a popular left wing issue, trust busting. It's as much about what isn't talked about as what's on the front page. To quote you from higher in the thread, "But it seems to be in their long term interest to have a fair, balanced political system and liberal society as we have now in the US." Is buying a news paper to promote that idea not a form of activism?
- stuart78 9y ago
  With Bezos it seems both. Providing a stable foundation for long-term sustainability, but also an interest in the business being self-sustaining. Productizing their CMS as Arc Publishing, being the best example of the latter.
- kristianc 9y ago
  Bezos is on the record as talking about what motivates his philanthropy: “I’m thinking about a philanthropy strategy that is the opposite of how I mostly spend my time — working on the long term,” he wrote. “For philanthropy, I find I’m drawn to the other end of the spectrum: the right now.” Whether you'd call the Post philanthropic probably depends on whether you think the small profit that the Post makes is what motivates Bezos. Given both Bezos immense wealth and his views on profit in general, I'd err on the side of calling it philanthropic. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/business/media/jeff-bezos-amazon-rich-charity.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/business/media/jeff-bezos...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- pm90 9y ago
  This is just 100% speculation, as I have no idea what Jobs or Bezos or Gates or anyone else really think. But it seems to be in their long term interest to have a fair, balanced political system and liberal society as we have now in the US. If you look at wealth creation and accumulation throughout history, its been accumulated by less than honorable means. And I'm not talking about Gates screwing over Jobs with Windows: I'm talking actual killing and grabbing of wealth, invasion or outright seizure of assets. I have a feeling that the smart rich people understand this and want to preserve a somewhat fair and balanced society. This is why it completely baffles me as to why the Koch brothers are so hell bent on destroying our democracy. And the only plausible reason seems to be: they're not really well educated, or smart enough, to understand the impact that their short term thinking will have on the American system. Since they inherited most of their wealth, they've never really lived without wealth, I'm guessing they can't relate to people without it.
  - aswanson 9y ago
    They're smart enough. They have the same idea of how force has been used to extract wealth over the ages, but see that force personified as an unchecked government with a monopoly on violence. They see their libertarian philosophy, at it's root, at protecting society and freedom of business from the power of statism. You may or may not agree, but that is how I'd expect them to roughly frame what they believe.
  - arcseco 9y ago
    Both the Koch brothers and Bezos are liberals in the broadest sense of the word, in fact Charles Koch considers himself and probably is a classical liberal [1]. They both are both injecting personal bias into politically active ventures, and that is an affront to what democracy should be about. Because of their vast wealth they are able to shape and suppress political discourse in their own favour (I would guess that your and most peoples interests don't align directly with those of a multi-billionaire). Bezos is probably more left leaning than others but that doesn't mean that his politics don't impact people negatively. Do you really believe that Carlos Slim's primary motivator for becoming the largest stake holder in the NYT Co. is to promote coexistence via liberalism? [1]http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-1/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-...
- ShabbosGoy 9y ago
  The cynic within me thinks it's purely an investment opportunity. However, it is not uncommon practice for the wealthy to purchase a nontrivial stake in popular media publications. Among other things, it allows them utilize their influence to have a seat at the table, so to speak. Whether or not that is a net positive good for society is another topic entirely.
bsimpson 9y ago
Interesting that it includes The Atlantic but not Quartz.
- wand3r 9y ago
  I didn't realize Quartz was incubated by Atlantic until you're comment prompted me to look into what made that interesting. As a potential reason why it may not be included I found that it (Quartz) was being shopped for sale in late 2015-2016[0]. My guess is that they ended up selling Atlantic media instead, or Quartz is still for sale/being sold. Agreed, interesting they didn't include it. [0] http://fortune.com/2015/12/11/quartz-sale/ http://fortune.com/2015/12/11/quartz-sale/
dnjsenbrnsbedb 9y ago
Very strange that the article doesn't mention that Laurene Powell Jobs is the widow of Steve Jobs. A weird attempt at political correctness?
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  Uh... Ctrl+F, "Steve" > That list included Ms. Powell Jobs, who is the widow of Steven P. Jobs, a co-founder of Apple; she first expressed interest in the company at a meeting in January in Washington.
- sumedh 9y ago
  Did you even read the article? "That list included Ms. Powell Jobs, who is the widow of Steven P. Jobs, a co-founder of Apple"
blueyes 9y ago
A much better media investment than OZY. Glad to see tech money stepping up to back real news organizations in America at a time when we desperately need them to do their work well. More research into the fiasco in Washington, and across America, is one way to help get us out of this mess.
- 2sk21 9y ago
  I agree. I have been a subscriber for many years now and have really liked their writing.
- Banthum 9y ago
  More representation of people from different backgrounds and philosophies in the media is one way to help get us out of this mess. The further concentration of 'voice' in our society towards an already hyper-powerful few will only make things worse. It amazes me how much supposedly egalatarian-minded people are happy to amplify power imbalances if they think it'll be their kind of people holding the whip.
  - coolgeek 9y ago
    This isn't an either-or situation. Both your issue, as well as the parent's, are true

91 points by zonotope 9y ago

I'm curious if Bezos and Powell Jobs got into media as an investment or as philanthropy? With the current state of the industry I'd believe the latter before the former.

rfrank 9y ago
Activism. I'm curious why downvoters think their acquisitions aren't a form of activism. For instance, their coverage of an Amazon monopoly is very sparse, even given the recent Democratic economic policy statements which mention monopolies frequently. Billionaires wanting to control the press isn't exactly a shocking idea. Is buying a newspaper and controlling their output more or less offensive than Theil's funding the Gawker suit? 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/11/at-this-point-amazon-really-might-as-well-just-buy-the-postal-service/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/11/at-th... 2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/10/15/stop-amazon-really/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201... 3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/amazon-isnt-technically-dominant-but-it-pervades-our-lives/2017/07/19/977df402-6cb2-11e7-abbc-a53480672286_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/amazon-isnt-technica... 4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/30/amazon-wants-to-send-stuff-before-you-order-it-are-other-retailers-doomed/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/30/amazo... 5. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/is-amazon-getting-too-big/2017/07/28/ff38b9ca-722e-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/is-amazon-getting-to...
- lawnchair_larry 9y ago
  There is no question that this is the reason. Many billionares have sought to control the public narrative by buying media outlets. It's easily the most effective way to ensure that their personal views are served up to the public. Same reason that Putin started RT.
- pvg 9y ago
  How do any of these links demonstrate that Bezos is controlling the Washington Post's output?
  - rfrank 9y ago
    To me, saying "Bezos doesn't influence Wapo's output" is like saying, "Oculus will remain an independent entity inside Facebook." Not something I'm inclined to believe. Why should one believe that the billionaire (and new richest man in the world) at the helm of a major monopoly isn't influencing WaPo's content?
    - pvg 9y ago
      "I don't believe it" is not very convincing evidence. Oculus and the Post are not really comparable, nobody (statistically) cares how independent Oculus is. Even if you want to look at this from a purely business perspective - editorial independence is part of the product. It's also what ensures you can attract real journalists.
      - rfrank 9y ago
        That's the evidence you've presented against my assertion, as neither of us would know the real answer. My links above could be perceived as control because a predominantly left wing paper is defensive of a company who runs afoul of a popular left wing issue, trust busting. It's as much about what isn't talked about as what's on the front page. To quote you from higher in the thread, "But it seems to be in their long term interest to have a fair, balanced political system and liberal society as we have now in the US." Is buying a news paper to promote that idea not a form of activism?
stuart78 9y ago
With Bezos it seems both. Providing a stable foundation for long-term sustainability, but also an interest in the business being self-sustaining. Productizing their CMS as Arc Publishing, being the best example of the latter.
kristianc 9y ago
Bezos is on the record as talking about what motivates his philanthropy: “I’m thinking about a philanthropy strategy that is the opposite of how I mostly spend my time — working on the long term,” he wrote. “For philanthropy, I find I’m drawn to the other end of the spectrum: the right now.” Whether you'd call the Post philanthropic probably depends on whether you think the small profit that the Post makes is what motivates Bezos. Given both Bezos immense wealth and his views on profit in general, I'd err on the side of calling it philanthropic. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/business/media/jeff-bezos-amazon-rich-charity.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/15/business/media/jeff-bezos...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pm90 9y ago
This is just 100% speculation, as I have no idea what Jobs or Bezos or Gates or anyone else really think. But it seems to be in their long term interest to have a fair, balanced political system and liberal society as we have now in the US. If you look at wealth creation and accumulation throughout history, its been accumulated by less than honorable means. And I'm not talking about Gates screwing over Jobs with Windows: I'm talking actual killing and grabbing of wealth, invasion or outright seizure of assets. I have a feeling that the smart rich people understand this and want to preserve a somewhat fair and balanced society. This is why it completely baffles me as to why the Koch brothers are so hell bent on destroying our democracy. And the only plausible reason seems to be: they're not really well educated, or smart enough, to understand the impact that their short term thinking will have on the American system. Since they inherited most of their wealth, they've never really lived without wealth, I'm guessing they can't relate to people without it.
- aswanson 9y ago
  They're smart enough. They have the same idea of how force has been used to extract wealth over the ages, but see that force personified as an unchecked government with a monopoly on violence. They see their libertarian philosophy, at it's root, at protecting society and freedom of business from the power of statism. You may or may not agree, but that is how I'd expect them to roughly frame what they believe.
- arcseco 9y ago
  Both the Koch brothers and Bezos are liberals in the broadest sense of the word, in fact Charles Koch considers himself and probably is a classical liberal [1]. They both are both injecting personal bias into politically active ventures, and that is an affront to what democracy should be about. Because of their vast wealth they are able to shape and suppress political discourse in their own favour (I would guess that your and most peoples interests don't align directly with those of a multi-billionaire). Bezos is probably more left leaning than others but that doesn't mean that his politics don't impact people negatively. Do you really believe that Carlos Slim's primary motivator for becoming the largest stake holder in the NYT Co. is to promote coexistence via liberalism? [1]http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-1/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-hate-koch-brothers-part-...
ShabbosGoy 9y ago
The cynic within me thinks it's purely an investment opportunity. However, it is not uncommon practice for the wealthy to purchase a nontrivial stake in popular media publications. Among other things, it allows them utilize their influence to have a seat at the table, so to speak. Whether or not that is a net positive good for society is another topic entirely.

bsimpson 9y ago

Interesting that it includes The Atlantic but not Quartz.

wand3r 9y ago
I didn't realize Quartz was incubated by Atlantic until you're comment prompted me to look into what made that interesting. As a potential reason why it may not be included I found that it (Quartz) was being shopped for sale in late 2015-2016[0]. My guess is that they ended up selling Atlantic media instead, or Quartz is still for sale/being sold. Agreed, interesting they didn't include it. [0] http://fortune.com/2015/12/11/quartz-sale/ http://fortune.com/2015/12/11/quartz-sale/

dnjsenbrnsbedb 9y ago

Very strange that the article doesn't mention that Laurene Powell Jobs is the widow of Steve Jobs. A weird attempt at political correctness?

ceejayoz 9y ago
Uh... Ctrl+F, "Steve" > That list included Ms. Powell Jobs, who is the widow of Steven P. Jobs, a co-founder of Apple; she first expressed interest in the company at a meeting in January in Washington.
sumedh 9y ago
Did you even read the article? "That list included Ms. Powell Jobs, who is the widow of Steven P. Jobs, a co-founder of Apple"

blueyes 9y ago

A much better media investment than OZY. Glad to see tech money stepping up to back real news organizations in America at a time when we desperately need them to do their work well. More research into the fiasco in Washington, and across America, is one way to help get us out of this mess.

2sk21 9y ago
I agree. I have been a subscriber for many years now and have really liked their writing.
Banthum 9y ago
More representation of people from different backgrounds and philosophies in the media is one way to help get us out of this mess. The further concentration of 'voice' in our society towards an already hyper-powerful few will only make things worse. It amazes me how much supposedly egalatarian-minded people are happy to amplify power imbalances if they think it'll be their kind of people holding the whip.
- coolgeek 9y ago
  This isn't an either-or situation. Both your issue, as well as the parent's, are true