7 ms·

Wouln't have expected this article from this source. Worth noting that Washington Post is owned by Amazon founder Bezos. It was usually said that billionaires o

Wouln't have expected this article from this source. Worth noting that Washington Post is owned by Amazon founder Bezos. It was usually said that billionaires owning mass media is used by them to push their free market agenda (and there were certainly a number of occassions where it denounced upper class taxation or stayed mum on the Bezos/UAE phone leak scandal) but also some counter-examples like reporting on toxicity in Blue Origin (also owned by Bezos). Glad to see more of such pieces, this shows that the media landscape is not as black and white as some make it out to be.

Thorentis 4y ago
Unless this article was intentionally allowed to be released as a way to counter the recent accusations that WaPo is just a Bezos mouthpiece.
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  Intentionally allowing anti-Bezos viewpoints would make the WaPo more than "just a Bezos mouthpiece" regardless of why they were allowed, no?
  - raxxorraxor 4y ago
    Not necessarily, it could just build plausible deniability for the paper not being independent. I don't at all believe that is the case here, but it could be that Amazon expects unionization to be inevitable and later articles undermine certain key position as unreasonable. The lie would get a mantle of truth. Or integrity in this case. The is why real independence for news rooms is important because you can never know.
  - tnzk 4y ago
    No as long as they would selectively pass only articles which look anti-Bezos at quick glance but are actually supportive with full read.
    - CyanBird 4y ago
      It is not a matter of being "supportive", so much as a way for them to have a hand at managing the narrative which the discussion will take and proactively lampshading upcoming arguments
    - cmeacham98 4y ago
      How is this article "actually supportive" of Amazon/Bezos? I really hope you're not going to claim because they put in responses from an Amazon spokesperson that makes the whole article pro-Amazon.
      - autoexec 4y ago
        I'd say it wouldn't even be required for all bad press to be somehow "actually supportive". If they were to selectively choose to publish articles that are in no way supportive when it doesn't matter so much to them, but still bury any articles that they fear would meaningfully harm them it's still serving Bezos/Amazon and allowing the relatively "harmless" articles helps to insulate them from accusations that their reporting is dictated by what's acceptable to Amazon/Bezos. Being able to choose your bad press is just about as good as preventing all of it, and if your goal is trick people into thinking you aren't manipulating what gets published, it's even better than censoring every negative article.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    Not really. Controlled opposition tends to veer into tin-foil hat stuff pretty quickly, but is nonetheless a normal tactic used by all sorts of entities. It essentially where some entity works to create (or appropriate) opposition to itself, while using that opposition -still ostensibly opposed to the entity- to further their own ends. The most common example of this would be to poison-the-well. Make the opposition to something to something look crazy, and it can help to make it look like that something is only opposed by people who are a few screws short. I'll conclude with the final paragraphs of this article: "The road to holding a union election in Campbellsville could be a long one. Already, [union organizer who had the cops called on him] Litrell said, members of his organizing committee have quit out of concern that Amazon will learn of their involvement and fire them. Workers in Campbellsville can’t afford to lose their Amazon jobs, Litrell said. “There’s other factories and such, but you’d have to go outside of Campbellsville to find a decent-paying job. Campbellsville is dependent on Amazon — it’s like a company town,” he said. “The other jobs are fast food or a telemarketing company and some small factories that don’t pay worth a damn.” “Amazon is the best employer in Campbellsville,” he said."
    - 1over137 4y ago
      >“Amazon is the best employer in Campbellsville” That's dire indeed. :(
    - cmeacham98 4y ago
      You cut out the fact that last section is from an Amazon spokesperson. Including Amazon's side of the story makes this article pro-Amazon and is "poisoning the well"???
      - somenameforme 4y ago
        The comments are from Matt Litrell, the union organizer who had the cops called on him - not an "Amazon spokersperson."
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  That would be like 4D chess, but it makes some sense. I might trust the state Chinese press more if it wrote an article critical of Xi once in awhile. I can’t imagine bezos being able to exert much direct control over the WaPo, however; too many people would know and talk about it. Instead, his influence would be a more long term thing (eg hiring Amazon sympathetic reporters and editors over a decade).
  - cuteboy19 4y ago
    >if it wrote an article critical of Xi once in awhile. They do this in scmp for international readers. Of course for internal news that's not allowed
- Lammy 4y ago
  See also: WaPo reminding us that billionaires, like, totally feel bad about inequality: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30145208 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30145208
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  More likely to get in early on a story they wouldn't be able to keep a lid on anyway. Damage control is a key pillar of PR.
throw93232 4y ago
How exactly does it hurt him? This influence is used less obviously, when it matters, at elections!
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > This influence is used less obviously, when it matters, at elections! What is that based on?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
the_only_law 4y ago
> Wouln't have expected this article from this source. Worth noting that Washington Post is owned by Amazon founder Bezos Sounds like someone's getting the cops called on them/fired.
donw 4y ago
For our younger readers, here's how the game works: 1. Amazon makes a big show about fighting unionization. Police, media, all the rest. 2. While doing (1), they quietly install leaders in the union movement that will do what they are told. The easiest way is to buy off whatever organic leadership emerges, but anybody can't be bought outright can be... persuaded. 3. Once (2) is complete, the proverbial dam breaks, and management is "forced" to accept unionization. There might be a few token concessions to show the masses that they have won a victory. 4. Now that there's a union, they act as legally independent enforcers for whatever the owners want, backed by the social force of the worker mob. This is how unions worked in the Soviet Union and its various client states. I've found Soviet organizational patterns be the most predictive model for understanding the current state of things. Workers absolutely had union representation to collectively bargain against "management" (the State). Your union just happened to bargain its way to whatever the State wanted them to do. Union bosses lived very comfortable lives. If you complained to the union, they'd hold one of the rigged votes that socialists are so famous for, and in the end, you'd likely be branded a "counter-revolutionary" and a "spreader of misinformation", and face consequences.
- kadoban 4y ago
  This seems to me to be an unlikely way a company would fight a union in the modern US. Do you have any examples of this happening? My doubt is largely because they can just stop them existing and face little to no consequences. Why bother being cute?
  - raxxorraxor 4y ago
    This is an extremely common modus operandi. It is like the police invades groups suspected of crime too. This isn't some elaborate conspiracy plan, it is one of the most effective ways to undermine any group. And of course PR is important, even and especially if you own a newspaper.
  - donw 4y ago
    > My doubt is largely because they can just stop them existing and face little to no consequences. Why bother being cute? If Amazon's workforce manages to organize outside of the penumbra of the company boot, then there absolutely will be negative consequences for Amazon. Why not just get ahead of that using a cheap, time-tested, and well-proven strategy that makes your position even stronger?
tyingq 4y ago
Last line of the article: “Amazon is the best employer in Campbellsville,” he said.
- smitblz 4y ago
  Are the jobs in Campbellsville decent to begin with or not?
- WoahNoun 4y ago
  Amazon is the best employer in many of the podunk towns they set up operations in.
labrador 4y ago
Maybe since he stepped away from running Amazon he's had time to think and realize he went too far in turning people into robots and now wants to make up for it. It's not likely, but it's possible. He's got some tough competition in the "do good" department from his ex-wife MacKenzie Scott
- zapataband1 4y ago
  Just the fact that you think the credibility of the WashingtonPost is derived by Jeff Bezos' mood is proof enough that billionaires(modern Kings/feudal lords) owning media companies is ass backwards.
  - labrador 4y ago
    It's not really new. William Randolph Hearst is probably the best example. He built a nice castle on the California Coast, I'll give him that.
- pm90 4y ago
  People like him never really change. Bill Gates did a good job of reputation laundering through his foundation trying to reinvent himself as a “friendly elder statesmen”; then the whole Epstein shit came to light, his wife divorced him etc.
  - jonathankoren 4y ago
    Yes, every robber baron billionaire eventually tries to launder their reputation through philanthropy. Yes, it’s nice that Andrew Carnegie built a bunch of libraries, and the Gates Foundation apparently has helped AIDS and polio in Africa, but when you really look at how much they’re giving versus how much they have (and still gain), it’s laughable. Ever billionaire that has taken Buffet’s so-called philanthropy pledge, will always be a billionaire. Now Mackenzie Scott on the other hand, has been giving money away faster than anyone, and an order of magnitude more than Jeff “I can’t think of any other way to spend my money except on an interplanetary escape pod for myself” Bezos.
jonas21 4y ago
Is this surprising? Well-run news organizations have integrity and keep an arm's length relationship with their owners. You say that "it was usually said that billionaires owning mass media is used by them to push their free market agenda," which seems like a convenient way to make a statement without attributing it to a source or taking ownership of it yourself.
pm90 4y ago
Worth noting that Washington Post is a national newspaper (peer to NYC in reach and stature) and is thus under much closer scrutiny than the thousands of local news outlets that are owned by the moneyed elite and do in fact refrain from reporting negatively on their owners or their business interests. While its great that WaPo isn’t corrupted by billionaire ownership, that should be the minimum expectations of press freedom in the US.
systemvoltage 4y ago
Regardless of billionaire influence, WaPo has some questionable ethics and reporters: https://twitter.com/PalmerLuckey/status/1533622885306503168 https://twitter.com/PalmerLuckey/status/1533622885306503168 I've never seen them as a highly trusthworthy and informative source.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pvg 4y ago
Wouln't have expected this It's only unexpected if you're an adherent of one very pat, messageboard-y Theory of Journalism. But it's really just run-of-the-mill evidence that particular theory is not very good.

Thorentis 4y ago

Unless this article was intentionally allowed to be released as a way to counter the recent accusations that WaPo is just a Bezos mouthpiece.

cmeacham98 4y ago
Intentionally allowing anti-Bezos viewpoints would make the WaPo more than "just a Bezos mouthpiece" regardless of why they were allowed, no?
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  Not necessarily, it could just build plausible deniability for the paper not being independent. I don't at all believe that is the case here, but it could be that Amazon expects unionization to be inevitable and later articles undermine certain key position as unreasonable. The lie would get a mantle of truth. Or integrity in this case. The is why real independence for news rooms is important because you can never know.
- tnzk 4y ago
  No as long as they would selectively pass only articles which look anti-Bezos at quick glance but are actually supportive with full read.
  - CyanBird 4y ago
    It is not a matter of being "supportive", so much as a way for them to have a hand at managing the narrative which the discussion will take and proactively lampshading upcoming arguments
  - cmeacham98 4y ago
    How is this article "actually supportive" of Amazon/Bezos? I really hope you're not going to claim because they put in responses from an Amazon spokesperson that makes the whole article pro-Amazon.
    - autoexec 4y ago
      I'd say it wouldn't even be required for all bad press to be somehow "actually supportive". If they were to selectively choose to publish articles that are in no way supportive when it doesn't matter so much to them, but still bury any articles that they fear would meaningfully harm them it's still serving Bezos/Amazon and allowing the relatively "harmless" articles helps to insulate them from accusations that their reporting is dictated by what's acceptable to Amazon/Bezos. Being able to choose your bad press is just about as good as preventing all of it, and if your goal is trick people into thinking you aren't manipulating what gets published, it's even better than censoring every negative article.
- somenameforme 4y ago
  Not really. Controlled opposition tends to veer into tin-foil hat stuff pretty quickly, but is nonetheless a normal tactic used by all sorts of entities. It essentially where some entity works to create (or appropriate) opposition to itself, while using that opposition -still ostensibly opposed to the entity- to further their own ends. The most common example of this would be to poison-the-well. Make the opposition to something to something look crazy, and it can help to make it look like that something is only opposed by people who are a few screws short. I'll conclude with the final paragraphs of this article: "The road to holding a union election in Campbellsville could be a long one. Already, [union organizer who had the cops called on him] Litrell said, members of his organizing committee have quit out of concern that Amazon will learn of their involvement and fire them. Workers in Campbellsville can’t afford to lose their Amazon jobs, Litrell said. “There’s other factories and such, but you’d have to go outside of Campbellsville to find a decent-paying job. Campbellsville is dependent on Amazon — it’s like a company town,” he said. “The other jobs are fast food or a telemarketing company and some small factories that don’t pay worth a damn.” “Amazon is the best employer in Campbellsville,” he said."
  - 1over137 4y ago
    >“Amazon is the best employer in Campbellsville” That's dire indeed. :(
  - cmeacham98 4y ago
    You cut out the fact that last section is from an Amazon spokesperson. Including Amazon's side of the story makes this article pro-Amazon and is "poisoning the well"???
    - somenameforme 4y ago
      The comments are from Matt Litrell, the union organizer who had the cops called on him - not an "Amazon spokersperson."
seanmcdirmid 4y ago
That would be like 4D chess, but it makes some sense. I might trust the state Chinese press more if it wrote an article critical of Xi once in awhile. I can’t imagine bezos being able to exert much direct control over the WaPo, however; too many people would know and talk about it. Instead, his influence would be a more long term thing (eg hiring Amazon sympathetic reporters and editors over a decade).
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  >if it wrote an article critical of Xi once in awhile. They do this in scmp for international readers. Of course for internal news that's not allowed
Lammy 4y ago
See also: WaPo reminding us that billionaires, like, totally feel bad about inequality: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30145208 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30145208
throwawaylinux 4y ago
More likely to get in early on a story they wouldn't be able to keep a lid on anyway. Damage control is a key pillar of PR.

throw93232 4y ago

How exactly does it hurt him? This influence is used less obviously, when it matters, at elections!

wolverine876 4y ago
> This influence is used less obviously, when it matters, at elections! What is that based on?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

the_only_law 4y ago

> Wouln't have expected this article from this source. Worth noting that Washington Post is owned by Amazon founder Bezos Sounds like someone's getting the cops called on them/fired.

donw 4y ago

For our younger readers, here's how the game works: 1. Amazon makes a big show about fighting unionization. Police, media, all the rest. 2. While doing (1), they quietly install leaders in the union movement that will do what they are told. The easiest way is to buy off whatever organic leadership emerges, but anybody can't be bought outright can be... persuaded. 3. Once (2) is complete, the proverbial dam breaks, and management is "forced" to accept unionization. There might be a few token concessions to show the masses that they have won a victory. 4. Now that there's a union, they act as legally independent enforcers for whatever the owners want, backed by the social force of the worker mob. This is how unions worked in the Soviet Union and its various client states. I've found Soviet organizational patterns be the most predictive model for understanding the current state of things. Workers absolutely had union representation to collectively bargain against "management" (the State). Your union just happened to bargain its way to whatever the State wanted them to do. Union bosses lived very comfortable lives. If you complained to the union, they'd hold one of the rigged votes that socialists are so famous for, and in the end, you'd likely be branded a "counter-revolutionary" and a "spreader of misinformation", and face consequences.

kadoban 4y ago
This seems to me to be an unlikely way a company would fight a union in the modern US. Do you have any examples of this happening? My doubt is largely because they can just stop them existing and face little to no consequences. Why bother being cute?
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  This is an extremely common modus operandi. It is like the police invades groups suspected of crime too. This isn't some elaborate conspiracy plan, it is one of the most effective ways to undermine any group. And of course PR is important, even and especially if you own a newspaper.
- donw 4y ago
  > My doubt is largely because they can just stop them existing and face little to no consequences. Why bother being cute? If Amazon's workforce manages to organize outside of the penumbra of the company boot, then there absolutely will be negative consequences for Amazon. Why not just get ahead of that using a cheap, time-tested, and well-proven strategy that makes your position even stronger?

tyingq 4y ago

Last line of the article: “Amazon is the best employer in Campbellsville,” he said.

smitblz 4y ago
Are the jobs in Campbellsville decent to begin with or not?
WoahNoun 4y ago
Amazon is the best employer in many of the podunk towns they set up operations in.

labrador 4y ago

Maybe since he stepped away from running Amazon he's had time to think and realize he went too far in turning people into robots and now wants to make up for it. It's not likely, but it's possible. He's got some tough competition in the "do good" department from his ex-wife MacKenzie Scott

zapataband1 4y ago
Just the fact that you think the credibility of the WashingtonPost is derived by Jeff Bezos' mood is proof enough that billionaires(modern Kings/feudal lords) owning media companies is ass backwards.
- labrador 4y ago
  It's not really new. William Randolph Hearst is probably the best example. He built a nice castle on the California Coast, I'll give him that.
pm90 4y ago
People like him never really change. Bill Gates did a good job of reputation laundering through his foundation trying to reinvent himself as a “friendly elder statesmen”; then the whole Epstein shit came to light, his wife divorced him etc.
- jonathankoren 4y ago
  Yes, every robber baron billionaire eventually tries to launder their reputation through philanthropy. Yes, it’s nice that Andrew Carnegie built a bunch of libraries, and the Gates Foundation apparently has helped AIDS and polio in Africa, but when you really look at how much they’re giving versus how much they have (and still gain), it’s laughable. Ever billionaire that has taken Buffet’s so-called philanthropy pledge, will always be a billionaire. Now Mackenzie Scott on the other hand, has been giving money away faster than anyone, and an order of magnitude more than Jeff “I can’t think of any other way to spend my money except on an interplanetary escape pod for myself” Bezos.

jonas21 4y ago

Is this surprising? Well-run news organizations have integrity and keep an arm's length relationship with their owners. You say that "it was usually said that billionaires owning mass media is used by them to push their free market agenda," which seems like a convenient way to make a statement without attributing it to a source or taking ownership of it yourself.

pm90 4y ago

Worth noting that Washington Post is a national newspaper (peer to NYC in reach and stature) and is thus under much closer scrutiny than the thousands of local news outlets that are owned by the moneyed elite and do in fact refrain from reporting negatively on their owners or their business interests. While its great that WaPo isn’t corrupted by billionaire ownership, that should be the minimum expectations of press freedom in the US.

systemvoltage 4y ago

Regardless of billionaire influence, WaPo has some questionable ethics and reporters: https://twitter.com/PalmerLuckey/status/1533622885306503168 https://twitter.com/PalmerLuckey/status/1533622885306503168 I've never seen them as a highly trusthworthy and informative source.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

pvg 4y ago

Wouln't have expected this It's only unexpected if you're an adherent of one very pat, messageboard-y Theory of Journalism. But it's really just run-of-the-mill evidence that particular theory is not very good.