12 ms·

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 th

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?
        pvg 9y ago
        I’m not sure who you’re quoting but it’s not me. Also, you are the one making a strident assertion, you can’t really just say ‘none of us knows!’ when asked to support it.
        nl 9y ago
        But Amazon isn't a monopoly is any way. The WP has covered various union's arguments against Amazon, eg: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/17/why-this-group-is-trying-to-stop-amazon-from-buying-whole-foods/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/17/why-t... I think you may misunderstand what left-wing people generally think. This quote from the above article summarizes it quite well: Jon Leibowitz, a former Democratic chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, said the agency has a duty to challenge any deals that could end up hurting shoppers. “Think about the Amazon business model — that’s typically bringing down prices and enhancing innovation, which is a benefit to consumers,” said Leibowitz, now a partner at the law firm Davis Polk. “But the FTC is a very professional agency, and they’re going to pay attention to any substantive concerns raised by outside parties.”
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway91111 9y ago
  Seems like you have an axe to grind. I don't have a reason to be this suspicious about amazon. What's your reason?
  - rfrank 9y ago
    Seems like you have a reason to be defensive, throwaway account. I'm suspicious of any billionaire who buys a newspaper, for reasons I've been arguing in this thread - the very real potential for bad behavior.
    - throwaway91111 9y ago
      Potential, sure, but that is a potential with any newspaper. You don't need to own one to buy it off. Why not just critique amazon directly for what they're doing? What ARE they doing again that requires coverage?
- nl 9y ago
  I'm a little unclear as to the logic of your argument. If you are implying that Bezos is controlling WP's output then wouldn't he have stopped some of the stories you posted? I don't remember when he took control, but I'd note at least two of those stories are from this year. There are other articles critical of Amazon from WP too, eg: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/birkenstock-ceo-accuses-amazon-of-modern-day-piracy/2017/07/25/24fa7644-7086-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/birkenstock-... Maybe you think there should be more, but it's not like other news sources have huge numbers more. (Also, your argument that Amazon is a monopoly isn't one that is widely made. I can't think of a single category where Amazon doesn't have meaningful competition. Just being successful doesn't make a company a monopoly.)
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.

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?
      - pvg 9y ago
        I’m not sure who you’re quoting but it’s not me. Also, you are the one making a strident assertion, you can’t really just say ‘none of us knows!’ when asked to support it.
      - nl 9y ago
        But Amazon isn't a monopoly is any way. The WP has covered various union's arguments against Amazon, eg: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/17/why-this-group-is-trying-to-stop-amazon-from-buying-whole-foods/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/07/17/why-t... I think you may misunderstand what left-wing people generally think. This quote from the above article summarizes it quite well: Jon Leibowitz, a former Democratic chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, said the agency has a duty to challenge any deals that could end up hurting shoppers. “Think about the Amazon business model — that’s typically bringing down prices and enhancing innovation, which is a benefit to consumers,” said Leibowitz, now a partner at the law firm Davis Polk. “But the FTC is a very professional agency, and they’re going to pay attention to any substantive concerns raised by outside parties.”
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
throwaway91111 9y ago
Seems like you have an axe to grind. I don't have a reason to be this suspicious about amazon. What's your reason?
- rfrank 9y ago
  Seems like you have a reason to be defensive, throwaway account. I'm suspicious of any billionaire who buys a newspaper, for reasons I've been arguing in this thread - the very real potential for bad behavior.
  - throwaway91111 9y ago
    Potential, sure, but that is a potential with any newspaper. You don't need to own one to buy it off. Why not just critique amazon directly for what they're doing? What ARE they doing again that requires coverage?
nl 9y ago
I'm a little unclear as to the logic of your argument. If you are implying that Bezos is controlling WP's output then wouldn't he have stopped some of the stories you posted? I don't remember when he took control, but I'd note at least two of those stories are from this year. There are other articles critical of Amazon from WP too, eg: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/birkenstock-ceo-accuses-amazon-of-modern-day-piracy/2017/07/25/24fa7644-7086-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/birkenstock-... Maybe you think there should be more, but it's not like other news sources have huge numbers more. (Also, your argument that Amazon is a monopoly isn't one that is widely made. I can't think of a single category where Amazon doesn't have meaningful competition. Just being successful doesn't make a company a monopoly.)

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.