4 ms·

I wish news organizations would not give direct quotes when pure marketing nonsense was written. Just say something like "Amazon did not give us any substantive

I wish news organizations would not give direct quotes when pure marketing nonsense was written. Just say something like "Amazon did not give us any substantive comment on the matter."

batch12 3y ago
I suspect it's a case of one hand washing another. They publish the fluff so they can be on the list of publications that get early dibs on 'news' that will drive engagement.
- cratermoon 3y ago
  Don't forget the Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. If they didn't give Amazon's side unquestioned, someone would be in trouble.
  - chipotle_coyote 3y ago
    The article’s entire theme is “was this purchase a good thing” and the subhead (“raises questions about [Goodreads’] longtime owner”) strongly implies the answer is no. I get why “well, journalists never critically report on the people who directly or indirectly sign their paycheck, dontcha know!” is such a popular take (particularly in cynical times with a skeptical crowd), but the history of news shows journalists reporting on things that could potentially piss off their owners pretty repeatedly, and the Washington Post reporting on things relating to Amazon doesn’t seem to be a serious exception. Amusingly, I just did a DuckDuckGo search on “washington post reporting on amazon”, intending to see if there were critical takes on said reporting, and what came up instead was: a plethora of WaPo articles with headlines like “Bernie Sanders launches investigation into Amazon labor practices”, “Lawmakers: Amazon may have lied to Congress”, “Perspective: How Amazon shopping ads are disguised as real results”, “FTC sues Amazon over Prime enrollment without consent”, “Amazon’s OSHA data shows its workers injured at higher rates than rival companies”, and “Tour Amazon’s dream home, where every appliance is also a spy”.
deanCommie 3y ago
I wish people also learned some critical reading: Amazon spokesperson Ashely Vanicek said that "<exact quote>" Is journalistically neutral. Amazon was asked about what we wrote. Here's what they said. You decide if you believe us, or Amazon. I see nothing wrong with this, unless the headline of this story was "Goodreads' accelerated mission in delighting customers with the help of Amazon’s resources and technology.”
- archgoon 3y ago
  [dead]
- unethical_ban 3y ago
  I see both peoples' points. Yes, journalism can objectively report the fact that Amazon said something. I think it is also fair to wish for informationally bankrupt statements to be called out by decent institutions. As you say, the headline suggests an opposition to Amazon's position, so maybe that's enough.
  - CaptainZapp 3y ago
    I really liked Hunter S Thompson's gonzo journalism take in that regard. It went along the lines: "The defence secretary said that we're fighting a righteous and humane war in Vietnam. The defense secretary is full of shit!" Nowadays they send their spokes drones and have the spin masters cook up even more ridiculous shit. Hunter S Thompson (RIP) must be spinning in his grave. e: added quotes around Hunter's fictious statement
- cratermoon 3y ago
  It's not "Is journalistically neutral". It's being a purveyor of propaganda. Just like when journalists quote cops using CopSpeak. It lets the interested party defined the terms of the debate. By constraining the terms, it can become literally impossible to say some things.
  - deanCommie 3y ago
RoyGBivCap 3y ago
Devil's advocate: What if they gave a comment the publication didn't like (but readers would) and hid it? Publishing what was said is more "just the facts, please" than editorializing the response, as shitty PR-speak as it is.
monktastic1 3y ago
Not giving substantive comments makes it sound more honorable than what was actually said. I actually prefer them exposing the nonsense that corporations spew, so that their disingenuity is in plain sight and on the record.

I wish news organizations would not give direct quotes when pure marketing nonsense was written. Just say something like "Amazon did not give us any substantive comment on the matter."

batch12 3y ago

I suspect it's a case of one hand washing another. They publish the fluff so they can be on the list of publications that get early dibs on 'news' that will drive engagement.

cratermoon 3y ago
Don't forget the Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post. If they didn't give Amazon's side unquestioned, someone would be in trouble.
- chipotle_coyote 3y ago
  The article’s entire theme is “was this purchase a good thing” and the subhead (“raises questions about [Goodreads’] longtime owner”) strongly implies the answer is no. I get why “well, journalists never critically report on the people who directly or indirectly sign their paycheck, dontcha know!” is such a popular take (particularly in cynical times with a skeptical crowd), but the history of news shows journalists reporting on things that could potentially piss off their owners pretty repeatedly, and the Washington Post reporting on things relating to Amazon doesn’t seem to be a serious exception. Amusingly, I just did a DuckDuckGo search on “washington post reporting on amazon”, intending to see if there were critical takes on said reporting, and what came up instead was: a plethora of WaPo articles with headlines like “Bernie Sanders launches investigation into Amazon labor practices”, “Lawmakers: Amazon may have lied to Congress”, “Perspective: How Amazon shopping ads are disguised as real results”, “FTC sues Amazon over Prime enrollment without consent”, “Amazon’s OSHA data shows its workers injured at higher rates than rival companies”, and “Tour Amazon’s dream home, where every appliance is also a spy”.

deanCommie 3y ago

I wish people also learned some critical reading: Amazon spokesperson Ashely Vanicek said that "<exact quote>" Is journalistically neutral. Amazon was asked about what we wrote. Here's what they said. You decide if you believe us, or Amazon. I see nothing wrong with this, unless the headline of this story was "Goodreads' accelerated mission in delighting customers with the help of Amazon’s resources and technology.”

archgoon 3y ago
[dead]
unethical_ban 3y ago
I see both peoples' points. Yes, journalism can objectively report the fact that Amazon said something. I think it is also fair to wish for informationally bankrupt statements to be called out by decent institutions. As you say, the headline suggests an opposition to Amazon's position, so maybe that's enough.
- CaptainZapp 3y ago
  I really liked Hunter S Thompson's gonzo journalism take in that regard. It went along the lines: "The defence secretary said that we're fighting a righteous and humane war in Vietnam. The defense secretary is full of shit!" Nowadays they send their spokes drones and have the spin masters cook up even more ridiculous shit. Hunter S Thompson (RIP) must be spinning in his grave. e: added quotes around Hunter's fictious statement
cratermoon 3y ago
It's not "Is journalistically neutral". It's being a purveyor of propaganda. Just like when journalists quote cops using CopSpeak. It lets the interested party defined the terms of the debate. By constraining the terms, it can become literally impossible to say some things.
- deanCommie 3y ago

RoyGBivCap 3y ago

Devil's advocate: What if they gave a comment the publication didn't like (but readers would) and hid it? Publishing what was said is more "just the facts, please" than editorializing the response, as shitty PR-speak as it is.

monktastic1 3y ago

Not giving substantive comments makes it sound more honorable than what was actually said. I actually prefer them exposing the nonsense that corporations spew, so that their disingenuity is in plain sight and on the record.