4 ms·

Not sure that billionaires destroying media outlets is something to be cheered on.

by throwaway2048 8y ago

kajecounterhack 8y ago
Not sure national enquirer is a "media outlet." In general I agree that the fourth estate needs protection but I don't think arbitrary words on newsprint automatically makes you qualified.
- dominotw 8y ago
  > arbitrary words on newsprint automatically makes you qualified. Who gets to decide what is arbitrary?
asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago
Since media outlets don't engage in blackmail, there are none involved in this dispute. This is a billionaire versus a filthy, blackmailing rag.
- neveroffensive 8y ago
  Nothing you've said here is wrong. The enquirer doesn't meet the minimum standards of journalism, they are a blackmail rag. I think this could actually be proven with empirical data.
JimmyAustin 8y ago
"Billionaries destroying media outlets" is an emergent property from two facts: - Some people can't/don't get justice because they can't afford a lawsuit. - Rich people can give money to poor people to get them that justice. In order for Bezos to destroy them legally, they still need to have messed up in some way.
- jawnv6 8y ago
  wasn't it generally agreed that the Gawker-destroying opinion probably would have been reversed if they could've kept it afloat for an appeal? the bar for "messed up" isn't where you'd think
- untog 8y ago
  It's all but inevitable that a news publisher will get a story wrong at some point, that's why corrections get issued. So it's still a lot of power to put in the hands of the already powerful.
  - neveroffensive 8y ago
    There's a difference between a correction to a flawed article and attempted blackmail though... One is an accident that can occurre in the course of good journalism, the other is something else entirely.
    - untog 8y ago
      Oh sure. I was talking in the context of Thiel and Gawker, not Bezos and the National Enquirer.
      - wutbrodo 8y ago
        Yes, but this isn't an accurate description of gawker's case either. This wasn't a case of accidentally falling on the wrong side of the legal line and only realizing when it's too late. They repeatedly ignored direct court orders, eg to take down the video.
tathougies 8y ago
Because the billionaire is not destroying anything. He is requesting that the government, the entity charged with protecting citizens from criminals, notices and prosecutes a crime. The prosecution of companies and individuals for the breaking of just laws is something to cheer
davidw 8y ago
Real media outlets don't try and blackmail people, as Bezos makes clear in his post.
thrillgore 8y ago
But at the same time, Trump uses the Enquirer to cover his antics up. Today, my enemy's enemy is my friend.

Not sure that billionaires destroying media outlets is something to be cheered on.

Not sure national enquirer is a "media outlet." In general I agree that the fourth estate needs protection but I don't think arbitrary words on newsprint automatically makes you qualified.

dominotw 8y ago
> arbitrary words on newsprint automatically makes you qualified. Who gets to decide what is arbitrary?

asdfasgasdgasdg 8y ago

Since media outlets don't engage in blackmail, there are none involved in this dispute. This is a billionaire versus a filthy, blackmailing rag.

neveroffensive 8y ago
Nothing you've said here is wrong. The enquirer doesn't meet the minimum standards of journalism, they are a blackmail rag. I think this could actually be proven with empirical data.

JimmyAustin 8y ago

"Billionaries destroying media outlets" is an emergent property from two facts: - Some people can't/don't get justice because they can't afford a lawsuit. - Rich people can give money to poor people to get them that justice. In order for Bezos to destroy them legally, they still need to have messed up in some way.

jawnv6 8y ago
wasn't it generally agreed that the Gawker-destroying opinion probably would have been reversed if they could've kept it afloat for an appeal? the bar for "messed up" isn't where you'd think
untog 8y ago
It's all but inevitable that a news publisher will get a story wrong at some point, that's why corrections get issued. So it's still a lot of power to put in the hands of the already powerful.
- neveroffensive 8y ago
  There's a difference between a correction to a flawed article and attempted blackmail though... One is an accident that can occurre in the course of good journalism, the other is something else entirely.
  - untog 8y ago
    Oh sure. I was talking in the context of Thiel and Gawker, not Bezos and the National Enquirer.
    - wutbrodo 8y ago
      Yes, but this isn't an accurate description of gawker's case either. This wasn't a case of accidentally falling on the wrong side of the legal line and only realizing when it's too late. They repeatedly ignored direct court orders, eg to take down the video.

tathougies 8y ago

Because the billionaire is not destroying anything. He is requesting that the government, the entity charged with protecting citizens from criminals, notices and prosecutes a crime. The prosecution of companies and individuals for the breaking of just laws is something to cheer

davidw 8y ago

Real media outlets don't try and blackmail people, as Bezos makes clear in his post.

thrillgore 8y ago

But at the same time, Trump uses the Enquirer to cover his antics up. Today, my enemy's enemy is my friend.