4 ms·

Isn't WaPo owned by Amazon's ex-ceo Jeff Bezos, I'd be concerned about a conflict of interest with regard to its reporting on the matter. https://en.wikipedia.

by nannal 6y ago

Isn't WaPo owned by Amazon's ex-ceo Jeff Bezos, I'd be concerned about a conflict of interest with regard to its reporting on the matter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos#The_Washington_Post https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Bezos#The_Washington_Post

granzymes 6y ago
> (Amazon founder and chief executive Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.) Every Post article about Amazon includes that disclaimer.
- nannal 6y ago
  Once, a third of the way down the page. But sure it is there.
  - Jtsummers 6y ago
    If this article were anti-Union, or pro-Amazon, there might be a case for concern. But after reading it, it seems somewhat pro-Union (not outright, but nothing anti-union that I saw) and anti-Amazon's tactics (is this mailbox in the parking lot legit? Amazon was being intimidating by putting police officers outside a warehouse during a walk out). Not the sort of piece you'd expect if Bezos was heavy handed in editorial control over the Post.
    - pydry 6y ago
      It benefits them more to maintain the appearance of objectivity while controlling the messaging. Good PR doesn't try to hide mistakes that are out in the open and will try to maintain the pretence of objectivity. It would be interesting to see how much WaPo gets the benefit of the doubt when reporting on Amazon here vis a vis RT reporting on Russia: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=rt.com https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=rt.com
      - setr 6y ago
        The problem with this argument is that Washington Post could be 100% objective and your argument would remain the same. I'm not sure there was anything they could that would alleviate your concern, except removing bezos as owner altogether -- because anything they do could potentially benefit bezos (partly because he got some kind of relationship to pretty much everything at this point)
        pydry 6y ago
        Mentioning the traffic lights story would have alleviated my concern. I didn't expect it to be included and I wasn't surprised that it wasn't. https://www.rt.com/usa/515972-amazon-alabama-traffic-light-union/ https://www.rt.com/usa/515972-amazon-alabama-traffic-light-u... (there are plenty of non RT sources for this but the feeling you get when you see me using RT as a source neatly illustrates my point) You're right in a sense. I wouldn't trust North Koreans to report on themselves and I wouldn't trust Amazon to do it either, pretty much no matter what they said.
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    Newspapers need to cater to people who don't bother read the article?
    - johnchristopher 6y ago
      Of course they should. They make the titles of their articles very public and what they choose to report on or not is an important metadata.

by nannal 6y ago

granzymes 6y ago

> (Amazon founder and chief executive Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.) Every Post article about Amazon includes that disclaimer.

nannal 6y ago
Once, a third of the way down the page. But sure it is there.
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  If this article were anti-Union, or pro-Amazon, there might be a case for concern. But after reading it, it seems somewhat pro-Union (not outright, but nothing anti-union that I saw) and anti-Amazon's tactics (is this mailbox in the parking lot legit? Amazon was being intimidating by putting police officers outside a warehouse during a walk out). Not the sort of piece you'd expect if Bezos was heavy handed in editorial control over the Post.
  - pydry 6y ago
    It benefits them more to maintain the appearance of objectivity while controlling the messaging. Good PR doesn't try to hide mistakes that are out in the open and will try to maintain the pretence of objectivity. It would be interesting to see how much WaPo gets the benefit of the doubt when reporting on Amazon here vis a vis RT reporting on Russia: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=rt.com https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=rt.com
    - setr 6y ago
      The problem with this argument is that Washington Post could be 100% objective and your argument would remain the same. I'm not sure there was anything they could that would alleviate your concern, except removing bezos as owner altogether -- because anything they do could potentially benefit bezos (partly because he got some kind of relationship to pretty much everything at this point)
      - pydry 6y ago
        Mentioning the traffic lights story would have alleviated my concern. I didn't expect it to be included and I wasn't surprised that it wasn't. https://www.rt.com/usa/515972-amazon-alabama-traffic-light-union/ https://www.rt.com/usa/515972-amazon-alabama-traffic-light-u... (there are plenty of non RT sources for this but the feeling you get when you see me using RT as a source neatly illustrates my point) You're right in a sense. I wouldn't trust North Koreans to report on themselves and I wouldn't trust Amazon to do it either, pretty much no matter what they said.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  Newspapers need to cater to people who don't bother read the article?
  - johnchristopher 6y ago
    Of course they should. They make the titles of their articles very public and what they choose to report on or not is an important metadata.