In all likelihood, Amazon was also bidding on the rights to the show. This article reads to me like a cheap shot from Amazon because Apple won a licensing bid.

In all likelihood, Amazon was also bidding on the rights to the show. This article reads to me like a cheap shot from Amazon because Apple won a licensing bid. Maybe "loss" is the wrong word, but there are certainly more complicated intentions behind the article. Why was it written? Does WaPo really care about Charlie Brown, and does its new location in broadcast media really make a difference in the theme of "Democracy Dies in Darkness?" If Amazon picked up sole rights to Charlie Brown, would this article have been written? Or did Amazon pass on Charlie Brown because they felt it should appear on broadcast TV, where it "belongs", where its always been? In reality, Charlie Brown Halloween is just on a different channel now, paid via different mechanism, but WaPo is saying it "won't air", as if its getting locked in the vault.