3 ms·

I think this article seems like a good example of editorial independence. Even though both Amazon and the Washington Post are pretty much owned by the same pers

I think this article seems like a good example of editorial independence. Even though both Amazon and the Washington Post are pretty much owned by the same person, the Washington Post has published a pretty negative article about Amazon.

Retric 7y ago
Not to question their independence, but it seems to have a very positive spin for a negative article. Amazon’s quest for more, cheaper products... Former executives say e-commerce giant, which last year spent $400 million fighting fraud and abuse is kind of saying well their trying really really hard, honest. I suspect this has less to do with the Amazon relationship than the tendency to give similar weight to both sides of an issue. It's the lazy form of neutrality where you look at the mid point on an issue rather than aim for objective reality. Unfortunately, this causes a polarizing effect as extreme views move the midpoint.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- benologist 7y ago
  I wish they broke that $400m down so we could see how much went to AWS. > the company has developed algorithms to sift through the more than 5 billion changes to its worldwide catalogue each day
- ummonk 7y ago
  At Amazon’s scale, $400 million seems a year seems like a minuscule amount.
- Frost1x 7y ago
  I was actually surprised the WP even wrote this much. I read the title and saw it was a WP article and was immediately intrigued--not so much by the article contents but how the journalism would play out given the tight relationship. To me, it almost feels like damage control and saving face with all the given FTC investigations on current market monopolies.
fsagx 7y ago
Seems more like a case of: "Look -- We have editorial independence. We published this negative article about Amazon with information that literally everyone who uses Amazon already knows and takes into account."

Retric 7y ago

Not to question their independence, but it seems to have a very positive spin for a negative article. Amazon’s quest for more, cheaper products... Former executives say e-commerce giant, which last year spent $400 million fighting fraud and abuse is kind of saying well their trying really really hard, honest. I suspect this has less to do with the Amazon relationship than the tendency to give similar weight to both sides of an issue. It's the lazy form of neutrality where you look at the mid point on an issue rather than aim for objective reality. Unfortunately, this causes a polarizing effect as extreme views move the midpoint.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
benologist 7y ago
I wish they broke that $400m down so we could see how much went to AWS. > the company has developed algorithms to sift through the more than 5 billion changes to its worldwide catalogue each day
ummonk 7y ago
At Amazon’s scale, $400 million seems a year seems like a minuscule amount.
Frost1x 7y ago
I was actually surprised the WP even wrote this much. I read the title and saw it was a WP article and was immediately intrigued--not so much by the article contents but how the journalism would play out given the tight relationship. To me, it almost feels like damage control and saving face with all the given FTC investigations on current market monopolies.

fsagx 7y ago

Seems more like a case of: "Look -- We have editorial independence. We published this negative article about Amazon with information that literally everyone who uses Amazon already knows and takes into account."