3 ms·

Something really scary that's silently happening is activists taking over well-known/"famous" publications and changing the narrative without changing the name:

Something really scary that's silently happening is activists taking over well-known/"famous" publications and changing the narrative without changing the name: - WaPo was bought by Bezos - Local news stations (Tribune) bought by Sinclair - WSJ was bought by Murdoch - Newsweek bought by IAC - GigaOM was sold off and has new writers - Gawker now potentially being owned by a guy with a grudge We trust many of these news organizations because they've been around for years or decades or even centuries. And many times, we don't realize that their priorities have silently shifted.

sytelus 9y ago
People are realising media is dirt cheap for the power it exerts. For a fraction of your net worth, you can buy big stack or even entire Fox News or Breitbart or Times and change it the way you want. You can not only transmit your ideology on large portion of the population but even propel your commercial agenda. I think sooner or later people will realize that instead of spending big marketing $$, buying up media outright might be more cost effective.
knownothing 9y ago
It's a concerning trend. Another strange example: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-la-weekly-20171129-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-la-weekly-20171129-sto...
shortformblog 9y ago
Let's be clear, here: WaPo is not in the same category as most of your other examples. It just has a different owner, and the prior owner (the Graham family), while not as rich as Bezos, was still plenty rich. Don Graham famously tried to invest in Facebook as early as 2005: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2012/02/02/facebook-and-don-graham-have-been-very-good-to-each-other/#3a2e789328ba https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2012/02/02/facebo... Bezos, while involved, has not changed the basic tenor of its journalism beyond maybe souping up some of its technology. Also, WaPo publishes pieces critical of Amazon and its subsidiaries all the time: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/07/amazon-wants-a-key-to-your-house-i-did-it-i-regretted-it/?utm_term=.da8c5883ff1d https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/07... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/is-amazon-getting-too-big/2017/07/28/ff38b9ca-722e-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html?utm_term=.062539b02c1a https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/is-amazon-getting-to... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/whole-foods-places-new-limits-on-suppliers-upsetting-some-small-vendors/2018/01/05/7f58b466-f0a1-11e7-b390-a36dc3fa2842_story.html?utm_term=.e99a4ce3315d https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/whole-foods-... (Also, but on a different note, GigaOM was sold off because it had previously shut down and laid off all its writers.)
- gkoberger 9y ago
  I agree with you. They're all done for different reasons. I'm 100% pro-Bezos buying WaPo, especially since it seems he hasn't touched the editorial side of things. BUT it has been used to discredit legitimate WaPo journalism by Trump ("Amazon's Washington Post" / "Bezos Washington Post" / etc) I included GigaOM because it's probably closest to Gawker (relatively small blog, shut down due to external forces, and brought back with a new name). I didn't mean to imply all of these were nefarious changes. Rather, they're examples of people hijacking well-trusted (or well-known) brand names, which in the world of blogs/twitter/rumors are hard to come by.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    Remember that story with the company management stepping in because a feud between Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann was starting to get into unsavory business of the networks' parent companies? The idea that Jeff Bezos could influence the Post's coverage isn't outlandish, even if Trump rather cynically invoked the concept.
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
And, on the other side, Fox just got bought by Disney.

sytelus 9y ago

People are realising media is dirt cheap for the power it exerts. For a fraction of your net worth, you can buy big stack or even entire Fox News or Breitbart or Times and change it the way you want. You can not only transmit your ideology on large portion of the population but even propel your commercial agenda. I think sooner or later people will realize that instead of spending big marketing $$, buying up media outright might be more cost effective.

knownothing 9y ago

It's a concerning trend. Another strange example: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-la-weekly-20171129-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-la-weekly-20171129-sto...

shortformblog 9y ago

Let's be clear, here: WaPo is not in the same category as most of your other examples. It just has a different owner, and the prior owner (the Graham family), while not as rich as Bezos, was still plenty rich. Don Graham famously tried to invest in Facebook as early as 2005: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2012/02/02/facebook-and-don-graham-have-been-very-good-to-each-other/#3a2e789328ba https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2012/02/02/facebo... Bezos, while involved, has not changed the basic tenor of its journalism beyond maybe souping up some of its technology. Also, WaPo publishes pieces critical of Amazon and its subsidiaries all the time: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/07/amazon-wants-a-key-to-your-house-i-did-it-i-regretted-it/?utm_term=.da8c5883ff1d https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/12/07... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/is-amazon-getting-too-big/2017/07/28/ff38b9ca-722e-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html?utm_term=.062539b02c1a https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/is-amazon-getting-to... https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/whole-foods-places-new-limits-on-suppliers-upsetting-some-small-vendors/2018/01/05/7f58b466-f0a1-11e7-b390-a36dc3fa2842_story.html?utm_term=.e99a4ce3315d https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/whole-foods-... (Also, but on a different note, GigaOM was sold off because it had previously shut down and laid off all its writers.)

gkoberger 9y ago
I agree with you. They're all done for different reasons. I'm 100% pro-Bezos buying WaPo, especially since it seems he hasn't touched the editorial side of things. BUT it has been used to discredit legitimate WaPo journalism by Trump ("Amazon's Washington Post" / "Bezos Washington Post" / etc) I included GigaOM because it's probably closest to Gawker (relatively small blog, shut down due to external forces, and brought back with a new name). I didn't mean to imply all of these were nefarious changes. Rather, they're examples of people hijacking well-trusted (or well-known) brand names, which in the world of blogs/twitter/rumors are hard to come by.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  Remember that story with the company management stepping in because a feud between Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann was starting to get into unsavory business of the networks' parent companies? The idea that Jeff Bezos could influence the Post's coverage isn't outlandish, even if Trump rather cynically invoked the concept.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago

And, on the other side, Fox just got bought by Disney.