5 ms·

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.

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.