4 ms·

Has WaPo's "activist" owner had any real impact on what they choose to cover?

danso 9y ago
We don't truly know because we don't/can't/won't know all the stories that WaPo killed because of influence. However, worrying about stories being "killed" is the wrong way to think of the potentially nefarious effects. The much more common problem, and much harder to detect, are knowing the stories that the WaPo (or any news org) just didn't put priority into pursuing because of institutional inertia and unspoken rules. If WaPo had a reporter/editor who specialized in particular zealous investigations into Amazon, we would likely hear murmurs and off-the-record complaints about how WaPo has been going unexpectedly soft on Amazon post-acquisition. In contrast, there is no possibility of knowing how the average Wapo tech reporter would have covered Amazon in an alternate universe in 2017.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  I'm not sure what the parent's conclusion is, but AFAICT they are saying that there is no evidence of activism/bias. (I assume we are excluding opinion pages, which are supposed to be biased.) I don't agree with the general point that bias is necessarily difficult to detect. For example, with Murdoch there is a large amount of explicit evidence.
- dragontamer 9y ago
  Ehh? If WashPo kills a story, the other news outlets would most likely be running those stories. Lets say WashPo kills a story, why wouldn't Fox News run that story in the headlines? Or New York times? Or Politico, or... any media organization worth a darn?
  - hiharryhere 9y ago
    Not all stories are widely known before they break. For instance, Wapo might not pursue an investigative piece on Amazon as enthusiastically, or another investigation may get prioritised because of the owner. A story that isn't pursued might not see the light of day. Big stories, like the Weinstein disclosures, are broken after long periods of investigation and journalistic grunt-work. Only after they break do you see all the other news outlets pounce on the story and start reporting it. Historically, Wapo has been an important place for investigative work, they broke the Watergate story. I think that's more the worry.
    - dragontamer 9y ago
      > Not all stories are widely known before they break. For instance, Wapo might not pursue an investigative piece on Amazon as enthusiastically, or another investigation may get prioritised because of the owner. As is true of all Media. I don't recall any major Fox News articles or pieces on the Sexual Harassment claims of Bill O'Reily. But the story got out, because we have competing media companies in the USA. That's the benefit of free-market competition. Unfortunately, it also means that whenever one media company sounds the alarm, the readers need to be careful with the evidence.
      - sumedh 9y ago
        > But the story got out, because we have competing media companies in the USA. How long did it take for the Kevin Spacey story to get out even though there were rumours from early 2000. Some stories can remain buried for a very long time. Free market is not the answer to everything.
colordrops 9y ago
Yes. They commonly report negative SpaceX stories, and trashed the hell out of Bernie Sanders during the election, publishing 16 negatives stories in less than a day.
- rhcom2 9y ago
  How are those connected to the owner though?
  - colordrops 9y ago
    Jeff Bezos owns SpaceX competitor Blue Origin, and was a big Hillary Clinton supporter.
    - rhcom2 9y ago
      It's still an assumption to connect the paper's content to Bezos though. That he has William Randolph Hearst level control in the WaPo seems like a common conspiracy theory.
      - colordrops 9y ago
        It's a fundamental denial of obvious facts to claim that editorial control by the owner of a media outlet is conspiracy theory. There are plenty of well known examples, though most people only acknowledge the ones that are opposite their own political beliefs.
        rhcom2 9y ago
        What are the well known examples and the obvious facts connecting Bezos with the editorial direction of the WaPo? Saying he makes editorial decisions in the newspaper because they printed criticism of Sanders or his competition doesn't cut it for me.
        colordrops 9y ago
arca_vorago 9y ago
WaPo is an operation mockingbird outlet through and through now, and has no credibility left over from its olden days.
- knowaveragejoe 9y ago
  Yikes, really saddened to hear this far-reaching conspiracy claptrap on HN.
  - arca_vorago 9y ago
    Yikes, really sad to see people burying their head in the sand on HN. Don't be so patronizing.

We don't truly know because we don't/can't/won't know all the stories that WaPo killed because of influence. However, worrying about stories being "killed" is the wrong way to think of the potentially nefarious effects. The much more common problem, and much harder to detect, are knowing the stories that the WaPo (or any news org) just didn't put priority into pursuing because of institutional inertia and unspoken rules. If WaPo had a reporter/editor who specialized in particular zealous investigations into Amazon, we would likely hear murmurs and off-the-record complaints about how WaPo has been going unexpectedly soft on Amazon post-acquisition. In contrast, there is no possibility of knowing how the average Wapo tech reporter would have covered Amazon in an alternate universe in 2017.

forapurpose 9y ago
I'm not sure what the parent's conclusion is, but AFAICT they are saying that there is no evidence of activism/bias. (I assume we are excluding opinion pages, which are supposed to be biased.) I don't agree with the general point that bias is necessarily difficult to detect. For example, with Murdoch there is a large amount of explicit evidence.
dragontamer 9y ago
Ehh? If WashPo kills a story, the other news outlets would most likely be running those stories. Lets say WashPo kills a story, why wouldn't Fox News run that story in the headlines? Or New York times? Or Politico, or... any media organization worth a darn?
- hiharryhere 9y ago
  Not all stories are widely known before they break. For instance, Wapo might not pursue an investigative piece on Amazon as enthusiastically, or another investigation may get prioritised because of the owner. A story that isn't pursued might not see the light of day. Big stories, like the Weinstein disclosures, are broken after long periods of investigation and journalistic grunt-work. Only after they break do you see all the other news outlets pounce on the story and start reporting it. Historically, Wapo has been an important place for investigative work, they broke the Watergate story. I think that's more the worry.
  - dragontamer 9y ago
    > Not all stories are widely known before they break. For instance, Wapo might not pursue an investigative piece on Amazon as enthusiastically, or another investigation may get prioritised because of the owner. As is true of all Media. I don't recall any major Fox News articles or pieces on the Sexual Harassment claims of Bill O'Reily. But the story got out, because we have competing media companies in the USA. That's the benefit of free-market competition. Unfortunately, it also means that whenever one media company sounds the alarm, the readers need to be careful with the evidence.
    - sumedh 9y ago
      > But the story got out, because we have competing media companies in the USA. How long did it take for the Kevin Spacey story to get out even though there were rumours from early 2000. Some stories can remain buried for a very long time. Free market is not the answer to everything.

colordrops 9y ago

Yes. They commonly report negative SpaceX stories, and trashed the hell out of Bernie Sanders during the election, publishing 16 negatives stories in less than a day.

rhcom2 9y ago
How are those connected to the owner though?
- colordrops 9y ago
  Jeff Bezos owns SpaceX competitor Blue Origin, and was a big Hillary Clinton supporter.
  - rhcom2 9y ago
    It's still an assumption to connect the paper's content to Bezos though. That he has William Randolph Hearst level control in the WaPo seems like a common conspiracy theory.
    - colordrops 9y ago
      It's a fundamental denial of obvious facts to claim that editorial control by the owner of a media outlet is conspiracy theory. There are plenty of well known examples, though most people only acknowledge the ones that are opposite their own political beliefs.
      - rhcom2 9y ago
        What are the well known examples and the obvious facts connecting Bezos with the editorial direction of the WaPo? Saying he makes editorial decisions in the newspaper because they printed criticism of Sanders or his competition doesn't cut it for me.
        colordrops 9y ago

arca_vorago 9y ago

WaPo is an operation mockingbird outlet through and through now, and has no credibility left over from its olden days.

knowaveragejoe 9y ago
Yikes, really saddened to hear this far-reaching conspiracy claptrap on HN.
- arca_vorago 9y ago
  Yikes, really sad to see people burying their head in the sand on HN. Don't be so patronizing.