3 ms·

> It is a business. It does not have interests of its own. its owners have interests - in this case its the one owner who has that. Its staff may have interests

> It is a business. It does not have interests of its own. its owners have interests - in this case its the one owner who has that. Its staff may have interests You nailed it here: bezos, as the dude who owns the paper has a vested interest in his personal success, whether the paper succeeds or not. If it came down to him or the paper, he would choose himself. The editorial team, as the people who run the paper and are responsible for its quality, has a vested interest in the success of the paper. They decide what the interests of the paper are. If bezos goes against the editorial team, that is bezos' interests conflicting with their interests, and thus the paper's interests.

graemep 2y ago
> has a vested interest in the success of the paper What defines the success of the paper? Why do employees rather than the owner (who ultimately appoints them) get to decide? It is a business. If it was a non-profit organisation you would have a point (although I do not personally think much of the big non for profit media organisations I can think of). Even if it had a structure designed to promote other values over profits (as Reuters does) you would have a point. In this case, AFAIK, it is simply the property of its owner. People get to decide what to do with their property.
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  > What defines the success of the paper? The people who run it, day-in and day-out, are best-equipped to answer this question. > Why do employees rather than the owner (who ultimately appoints them) get to decide? Because each employee fits the above criteria, and is thus better-poised to make such a judgement compared to one single person who is not. And when it comes to multiple-such, better-equipped judges, the disparity becomes starker. > People get to decide what to do with their property. This is a red herring. Nobody is saying bezos can't decide what to do with his property. He's just not as well equipped as Post employees, to judge whether his decision is good for The Post. After all, having money obviously doesn't mean you have better info, or have more context, or make superior judgements. In some cases it just means you got a good head-start because your dad owned an apartheid emerald mine, or a portfolio of new york slums.

graemep 2y ago

> has a vested interest in the success of the paper What defines the success of the paper? Why do employees rather than the owner (who ultimately appoints them) get to decide? It is a business. If it was a non-profit organisation you would have a point (although I do not personally think much of the big non for profit media organisations I can think of). Even if it had a structure designed to promote other values over profits (as Reuters does) you would have a point. In this case, AFAIK, it is simply the property of its owner. People get to decide what to do with their property.

ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
> What defines the success of the paper? The people who run it, day-in and day-out, are best-equipped to answer this question. > Why do employees rather than the owner (who ultimately appoints them) get to decide? Because each employee fits the above criteria, and is thus better-poised to make such a judgement compared to one single person who is not. And when it comes to multiple-such, better-equipped judges, the disparity becomes starker. > People get to decide what to do with their property. This is a red herring. Nobody is saying bezos can't decide what to do with his property. He's just not as well equipped as Post employees, to judge whether his decision is good for The Post. After all, having money obviously doesn't mean you have better info, or have more context, or make superior judgements. In some cases it just means you got a good head-start because your dad owned an apartheid emerald mine, or a portfolio of new york slums.