3 ms·

> Washington Post We'd do well to keep in mind that the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, who also owns Blue Origin, a rival spaceflight company. That do

by adwn 6y ago

> Washington Post We'd do well to keep in mind that the Washington Post is owned by Jeff Bezos, who also owns Blue Origin, a rival spaceflight company. That doesn't necessarily mean that the reporter's information is false, but he's potentially biased.

robszumski 6y ago
There is no evidence that this is the case. Can you cite an example that is not Trump saying the "Amazon Washington Post"?
- adwn 6y ago
  > There is no evidence that this is the case. Can you cite an example that is not Trump saying the "Amazon Washington Post"? Huh? What does Trump have to do with Bezos owning the WaPo?
- elihu 6y ago
  Conflicts of interest cannot in general be proved or disproved to have influenced any person's behavior (short of an explicit quid pro quo agreement). For that reason, the safe assumption is generally to assume that if money is flowing from one person or organization to another that a conflict of interest exists and that it is very likely to be influencing behavior. In this case it means that it's reasonable to regard what the Washington Post says with some degree of skepticism. The best way to resolve conflicts of interest is to not have them in the first place. Unfortunately, if the Washington Post's continued existence depends on backing from a rich patron/owner, then their credibility is a little bit less than it would otherwise be on subjects that overlap with Jeff Bezos's interests. That doesn't mean the Washington Post is wrong, just that they deserve extra scrutiny. At the risk of letting politics intrude into the discussion: the Washington Post also exhibits a conflict-of-interest pattern of behavior elsewhere. Bernie Sanders is a vocal critic of Amazon and their treatment of workers, and the Washington Post is often harshly critical of Senator Sanders. Again, there's no proof that Jeff Bezos is influencing the editorial content of the Washington Post, but there's a pattern of behavior and a financial incentive.

by adwn 6y ago

robszumski 6y ago

There is no evidence that this is the case. Can you cite an example that is not Trump saying the "Amazon Washington Post"?

adwn 6y ago
> There is no evidence that this is the case. Can you cite an example that is not Trump saying the "Amazon Washington Post"? Huh? What does Trump have to do with Bezos owning the WaPo?
elihu 6y ago
Conflicts of interest cannot in general be proved or disproved to have influenced any person's behavior (short of an explicit quid pro quo agreement). For that reason, the safe assumption is generally to assume that if money is flowing from one person or organization to another that a conflict of interest exists and that it is very likely to be influencing behavior. In this case it means that it's reasonable to regard what the Washington Post says with some degree of skepticism. The best way to resolve conflicts of interest is to not have them in the first place. Unfortunately, if the Washington Post's continued existence depends on backing from a rich patron/owner, then their credibility is a little bit less than it would otherwise be on subjects that overlap with Jeff Bezos's interests. That doesn't mean the Washington Post is wrong, just that they deserve extra scrutiny. At the risk of letting politics intrude into the discussion: the Washington Post also exhibits a conflict-of-interest pattern of behavior elsewhere. Bernie Sanders is a vocal critic of Amazon and their treatment of workers, and the Washington Post is often harshly critical of Senator Sanders. Again, there's no proof that Jeff Bezos is influencing the editorial content of the Washington Post, but there's a pattern of behavior and a financial incentive.