3 ms·

I wish people also learned some critical reading: Amazon spokesperson Ashely Vanicek said that "<exact quote>" Is journalistically neutral. Amazon was asked a

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
  When journalists quote CopSpeak, and only report the cop's side of the story, that is propaganda. Unquestionably. When the entire premise of the story is hyper-critical of Amazon, and Amazon's defense is half-hearted, vacuuous, and informationally background, you don't need advanced media literacy to think "Wow, that response from Amazon does NOT pass the bullshit sniff test, huh, I wonder what that means." How much spoonfeeding do we expect to our readers? This isn't "A cop said the suspect had a gun, and that's why he shot him" <and we burned zero calories to validate that point>". This isn't "99.9% of scientists think one thing. 0.1% think the opposite. But we're not going to tell you that, we'll just interview 1 scientist from each position and let you decide." This is a super critical piece of Amazon that achieves the mandatory standards of reaching out to Amazon for comment, and the comment they got speaks for itself in contrast to the story so clearly that to editorialize on it any further insults the reader's intelligence.
  - cratermoon 3y ago
    Cops don't say "A cop said the suspect had a gun, and that's why he shot him", they say things like "officer-involved shooting" and "The teen was also a part of the incident and was hit in the abdomen by the one shot fired from the deputy’s gun, he said." The framing is what matters, and the WaPo story, the frame doesn't question whether or not Amazon's purchase was anti-competitive, just whether or not Amazon did a good job running it
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Cops don't say "A cop said the suspect had a gun, and that's why he shot him", No, they say “I saw that he had a weapon”, even if the reality is that some other cop said it. > they say things like "officer-involved shooting" That's not what the involved cops say, that’s what the department’s public affairs office says as a lead paragraph summary to discourage engagement with the details. (The details will then be whatever story the cops involved say.)

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
When journalists quote CopSpeak, and only report the cop's side of the story, that is propaganda. Unquestionably. When the entire premise of the story is hyper-critical of Amazon, and Amazon's defense is half-hearted, vacuuous, and informationally background, you don't need advanced media literacy to think "Wow, that response from Amazon does NOT pass the bullshit sniff test, huh, I wonder what that means." How much spoonfeeding do we expect to our readers? This isn't "A cop said the suspect had a gun, and that's why he shot him" <and we burned zero calories to validate that point>". This isn't "99.9% of scientists think one thing. 0.1% think the opposite. But we're not going to tell you that, we'll just interview 1 scientist from each position and let you decide." This is a super critical piece of Amazon that achieves the mandatory standards of reaching out to Amazon for comment, and the comment they got speaks for itself in contrast to the story so clearly that to editorialize on it any further insults the reader's intelligence.
- cratermoon 3y ago
  Cops don't say "A cop said the suspect had a gun, and that's why he shot him", they say things like "officer-involved shooting" and "The teen was also a part of the incident and was hit in the abdomen by the one shot fired from the deputy’s gun, he said." The framing is what matters, and the WaPo story, the frame doesn't question whether or not Amazon's purchase was anti-competitive, just whether or not Amazon did a good job running it
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Cops don't say "A cop said the suspect had a gun, and that's why he shot him", No, they say “I saw that he had a weapon”, even if the reality is that some other cop said it. > they say things like "officer-involved shooting" That's not what the involved cops say, that’s what the department’s public affairs office says as a lead paragraph summary to discourage engagement with the details. (The details will then be whatever story the cops involved say.)