6 ms·
Looks like Bezos has a propaganda arm now. I mean, sorry for the cynicism, but this is an obvious conflict of interest. Retail, distribution, infrastructure, a
by aridiculous 13y ago
Looks like Bezos has a propaganda arm now.
I mean, sorry for the cynicism, but this is an obvious conflict of interest. Retail, distribution, infrastructure, and now politics & media.
The man can do what he wants but the public probably shouldn't applaud this.
- toomuchtodo 13y agoI think he cares more about it being on the Kindle and the Fire than using it as his mouthpiece.
- aridiculous 13y agoI agree, in the short run. I suspect it's a power grab for influence in the long-term. Big media shapes the discourse, debate, and policy of the country. He can be a much more effective broker of business and societal matters now that he manages "the truth." I think, at least :/
- toomuchtodo 13y agoVigilance is the price of freedom and liberty.
- wnissen 13y agoIf that was the goal he would have had Amazon buy the company. Instead it's a "personal" acquisition. It's possible this is an elaborate ruse to fool the Graham family into selling their crown jewel (reputationally, at least. The Kaplan test preparation unit is the tail that now wags the profit dog at Washington Post, Inc., as I understand it.). However, that seems like a stretch. I'd much rather have a paper run as a hobby by a man (even a profoundly eccentric one) who can afford it than a board desperate to maximize quarterly earnings.
- bicx 13y agoIt could be that it was a personal acquisition because Amazon isn't making a much of a net profit, and buying the Washington Post would cause Amazon stock prices to tank.
- duaneb 13y agoI think that's an appropriate analysis; however, it would hold true for most people able to buy a newspaper and I have no specific fears heading in. That's pretty good given the current political climate.
- jessaustin 13y agoIs reporting a profession? What will the staff of WaPo do while Bezos is twisting "the discourse, debate, and policy"? Will they fade away quietly?
- grimtrigger 13y agoIs there anyone rich enough to buy a newspaper who wouldn't have a conflict of interest? Is there any human alive who wouldn't have a conflict of interest?
- aridiculous 13y agoOf course not. Doesn't mean we can't raise awareness of it each time it happens. That is, not applaud powerful people getting even more powerful. There are also alternative forms of ownership, but that's a more complex subject not fit for a message board.
- jbooth 13y agoHonestly, I'm kind of happy that there's at least one person who knows the difference between HTML and TCP/IP helping to shape the conversation now.
- jfb 13y agoWhy?
- noir_lord 13y agoI think because it is incredibly dangerous to have people who don't understand a subject passing legislation/informing public opinion on that subject. At the very least it is a situation ripe for misunderstandings leading to bad end results and at the worst is fertile ground for lobbyists and special interests.
- megablast 13y agoWhat do you imagine his role is? Editor? Tech journalist?
- narag 13y agoThat is, not applaud powerful people getting even more powerful. I've read here a hundred times complaints that mainstream media don't cover tech news as it should and I tend to agree. Bezos is a rich, powerful man. But it's "our" rich, powerful man, so I for one, am happy with this acquisition.
- walid 13y ago> The man can do what he wants but the public probably shouldn't applaud this. I kinda disagree with you on this one. Not only will something like the Kindle and Kindle apps benefit, but this is a huge win since the old style of media wasn't capable of figuring out how to stay in business. The reason why the Kindle, iTunes, Google Play or any other store is succeeding while the rest are failing is because all the rest didn't have monetized digital distribution mechanisms. All media was given out for free and now you can't stay in business if you decide to pay-wall your website. They weren't smart about it. However all other walled gardens are thriving because they are monetized from the get go and an effort has been made to make them simple to use. The public is the winner here, and the Kindle. The only loser is probably B&N.
- DamnYuppie 13y agoThe public loses when a news source losses all credibility for being unbiased. We need more news organizations that are doing real hard hitting journalism and fewer media mouth pieces...long term this is not a good thing...
- whatusername 13y agoYou have a media mouthpiece owned by Bezos. Don't complain too much. My choices for national media mouthpieces are owned by: Rupert Murdoch, Gina Rhinehart, The Australian Government.
- sien 13y agoRinehart only owns 15% of Fairfax. Also, what about all the TV and radio networks? Their ownership is wider than the three people you list.
- whatusername 13y agoThose 3 names feature pretty prominently in TV ownership. The two dedicated news services are Murdoch (sky) and govt (abc24). Rinehart also has a decent chunk of 10. So I guess there's Kerry Stokes. And whoever is looking after 9 these days.
- untog 13y agoWhen he starts firing editors and controlling output, sure.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- smackfu 13y agoNote that Amazon didn't buy the Washington Post.
- wismer 13y agoIt would be naive to think that the paper will produce an article that disparages Amazon's labor and business practices, now that it is owned by the same man that is the CEO of Amazon. I'm not sure what his stake is in the company, but I assume it's significant to raise this issue.
- smackfu 13y agoGiven the traditional separation of editorial and business in newspapers, I wouldn't be shocked if the Post ran an Amazon hit piece just to test the boundaries.
- jessaustin 13y agoThe fact that this seems very plausible ought to give us pause when the actual event convinces us that they're still independent.
- jlgreco 13y agoDamned if they do, damned if they don't? That is a convenient position to hold. You can't be wrong!
- grimtrigger 13y ago> give us pause Parent's point is that WaPo/Bezos shouldn't be damned either way in this case.
- notatoad 13y agoThe same could be said about any prospective owner of a newspaper. Is Bezos owning media interests really worse than anybody else? I'd argue that a new entrant into news media is much preferable to further consolidation of media among the currently small set of big players in the industry.
- philwelch 13y agoOK, the only ideal owners of a newspaper would be anthropologists from another planet who cared nothing about Earth affairs and only documented what they saw. But even failing that, you seem to see better journalism from competing groups of intellectually honest yet openly biased sources than from supposedly unbiased sources. With biased sources, you can just read every side and form your own opinion. With supposedly unbiased sources, you'd have to do the same thing anyway but it's much harder to figure out what their biases were to begin with. And sure, people can be intellectually lazy and only read sources that they agree with, but the fallacy of unbiased journalism is that a handful of media outlets will end up providing that anyway, just with the illusion of impartiality.
- throwaway2048 13y agoI am informed because i gather both sides of the arguement when I watch CNN and fox news!
- AsymetricCom 13y agoThat's certainly a valid perspective, but it's not the only one. Why not a market with both?
- adestefan 13y agoYou do realize that you're posting this comment on the propaganda arm of Y Combinator and PG right?
- aridiculous 13y agoYou're comparing HN to the Washington Post? We happen to be a thoughtful community and a decent newsreader without (a lot of) hierarchy. If it migrates elsewhere, I will as well. I find many of Graham's old essays amusing in the abstract sense (they're Austrian Economics rehashed in the language of computer science), but question his intentions.
- majani 13y ago... a thoughtful community... (with loads of links to YCombinator startups forced in between)