6 ms·

We Already Know What Kind of Newspaper Owner Jeff Bezos Will Be

103 points by r0h1n 13y ago

Tichy 13y ago
Amazon's job was not to be political. The WP's job is. I wouldn't draw analogies from one to the other.
- rz2k 13y ago
  I don't see how this article could neglect to address that Jeff Bezos bought the paper himself, rather than having Amazon buy it. Also, for it to mention Bill Gates without contrasting what he did to the tech world through Microsoft during the 90s with what he is accomplishing for the whole world as a philanthropist now is striking. The mistake may have been inexcusable for anyone who believes that transparency leads to better governance, but it was one decision, and we now know that every company we thought had a whole set of established practices as common carriers eventually caved to the federal government. I don't think it's clear internet infrastructure providers experienced less pressure from the Fed than the press did in the 1970s. Bezos may also have considered his obligations to the stock holders of a public company without the context of something equivalent to journalistic ethics. Anyway, I'd agree that we don't actually know what role he'll play with the Washington Post, or what he will do during the next 30 years, but we also don't know whether he'll be courageous or not in journalism from one incident.
temphn 13y ago
A paper can resist government regulation, but a normal business cannot (or could not in 2010). Bezos is philosophically an opponent of government regulation[1] and may have bought the Washington Post simply because he hated backing down in 2010. Now he has a weapon and can fight back. We might actually see much more reporting on the network of multibillion dollar bureaucratic TLAs that control our GOV, with the IRS, NSA, and now DEA scandals being just the beginning. [1] http://www.geekwire.com/2011/meet-shel-kaphan-amazoncom-employee-1/4/ http://www.geekwire.com/2011/meet-shel-kaphan-amazoncom-empl... Q: What would you ask Bezos if you sat down with coffee for him today? Shel Kaphan, First Amazon Employee: “The first (questions) that come to mind are personal, but one that I’d like to ask him is whether, even after what’s happened in the economy since 2008, if he would still contend that less government regulation is always better.” Of course, Sarbox did nothing to prevent the financial crisis. And Dodd Frank will do nothing to prevent the meltdown of the US dollar.
- mcv 13y ago
  > may have bought the Washington Post simply because he hated backing down in 2010. Interesting perspective. I hope it's true, but if it is, I'd appreciate if he said so.
yk 13y ago
Well, this may or may not be a case of "watch the hands, not the mouth." But at the moment we simply do not have enough information to speculate how the WP will develop under new ownership.
- Ygg2 13y ago
  True, though as the good old magic 8 ball says, all signs point to bad. Bezos simply seems like someone that favors comfort over freedom, but then again I won't judge actions that haven't yet happened.
ekianjo 13y ago
The title is confusing. The author says "we already know" but in the article itself, around the end, he admits nobody knows how the Post is going to turn out: "I have no idea whether Bezos has the wherewithal to expand at such a scale. I also have no idea what he has in mind for the Post and its newsroom."
Sven7 13y ago
The real question is - is there a better way to value, the opinion pieces of people who don't do anything other than write for a living?
res0nat0r 13y ago
> Remember when Amazon pulled the plug on Wikileaks? The classified documents being hosted on AWS were in fact illegal to do so, and thus against the AUP of AWS so it was perfectly reasonable and appropriate to pull the plug. The wikileaks data dump is in no way comparable to Watergate and singular reporting and investigation of specfic illegal acts.
- mathetic 13y ago
  Yes it is not comparable because Wikileaks documents showed people died without any apparent reason but the States being the States is immune to crimes against humanity. If you get bombed/terrorised that's policy changing, nation wide traumatic event and a good reason to bomb the shit out of the one attacked you. If you do the same thing to another country (read plethora of countries) then you first tag the journalist who has the balls to expose you, denounce him as a criminal and then call it incomparable to your little presidential problems. I don't care much about many traits you have just displayed arrogance, ignorance and indifference being the leading ones but such ugly patriotism is perhaps the worst of all and is the leading cause of where we are now as a world. I know this is the kind of comment that will get downvoted and considering the general climate of HN it should be downvoted but some people really deserve such harsh comments because their claims written in nice and harmless language is plain offensive to all the people US decided to fuck up in their history (and that's lots and lots of people all around the world).
  - bpodgursky 13y ago
    What the hell are you talking about?
    - falk 13y ago
      Wikileaks exposed that the U.S. was bombing Yemen in secret. http://www.salon.com/2010/11/29/wikileaks_yemen_revelations/ http://www.salon.com/2010/11/29/wikileaks_yemen_revelations/
  - skrebbel 13y ago
    > I know this is the kind of comment that will get downvoted Try interpunction, you'll get significantly fewer downvotes.
aaronbrethorst 13y ago
Alec MacGillis (the TNR author linked to in this blog post, http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114178/jeff-bezos-purchase-washington-post-bad-news http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114178/jeff-bezos-purchas...) is paid to generate controversy. He's complaining about how the new guard isn't really serious about the news and is nouveau riche (see: "$42 million, 10,000-year clock in West Texas."). Not that it's falsifiable, but I bet you that if MacGillis was a staffer at the Post, he'd be crowing about how this represented 'new digital synergies' (barf) just like Blodget is. "the faster-cheaper-further mindset" No, this would be the Sun Times firing their photographers and equipping their reporters with iPhones. I have serious issues with Amazon, ranging from the work/life balance of their engineers (I live about 10 minutes away from their South Lake Union headquarters, and have no desire to ever work there), to the treatment of their warehouse workers, but this is just pontification for the sake of page views.
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  > Alec MacGillis is paid to generate controversy. ... and is nouveau riche Yeah, that's nice. But is he wrong? IMHO he brings to the table a very relevant point that others have not.
- elsurudo 13y ago
  Basic ad-hominem attack. You did nothing to address the content of the article. The article's main point has a lot of merit, IMO.
- Uchikoma 13y ago
  Ad-hominem attacks only take you so far.
greyman 13y ago
IMHO the author is too harsh on Bezos. Ok, Amazon stopped hosting wikileaks, but that's because they published classified diplomatic cables, which was probably illegal, and (only in my opinion) also controversial; i.e. it is questionable whether this served public interest, or was just an illegal act. [Now I don't say the whole wikileaks is controversial, only this specific act of publishing diplomatic cables]. If he will really stop some real investigative journalism story, which the public has the right to know, like gov corruption etc., THEN I'll be concerned. For now, let's watch what he is up to.
- SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
  You don't pull someone's hosting, against the probable public interest, because you get a quiet word from a senator about something "probably illegal, and also controversial". You pull someone's hosting when you get a properly filled-out court order. > real investigative journalism story So are you saying the the collateral murder story was in no way "investigative journalism" ?
- mcv 13y ago
  Wikileaks was publishing on US war crimes and various secret shady dealings by various governments. Illegal or not, it's stuff that needs to be published. Bezos removing it before he was court ordered to, definitely counts against his credibility as a defender of the free press.
jval 13y ago
I think everyone's kinda missing the point here. You don't trust powerful people, plain and simple. Not because they're any worse than the average person, but because you can't do anything to stop them when they do something wrong. There's a reason why we have three arms of government.
- qq66 13y ago
  The media will always be controlled by powerful people. If a media outlet has a self-sustaining profitable business model, it will bestow power upon its owners and managers. If it loses money, it will be taken under the wing of an otherwise wealthy and powerful individual.
  - alfiejohn_ 13y ago
    > If a media outlet has a self-sustaining profitable business model Take a look at who owns The Guardian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust In 1992, the Trust identified its central objective as being the following: - To secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity: as a quality national newspaper without party affiliation; remaining faithful to liberal tradition; as a profit-seeking enterprise managed in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The Trust sees its main functions as being the following: - To secure the Trust's own continuity by renewing its membership and by dealing with threats to its existence; - To monitor the organisation, financial management and overall strategy of the Group, holding the board accountable for its performance; - To appoint and 'in extreme circumstances' to dismiss the editors of The Guardian and The Observer, - To act as a 'court of appeal' in the event of any dispute between the editorial and managerial sides of the operation.
    - lemming 13y ago
      This is why I religiously read and pay for the Guardian. They still run massive losses but I do what I can - they're the best news source I've found by far.
- oleganza 13y ago
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Lazare 13y ago
Let me see if I can summarize this: Some years back, a webhost whose terms of service said "no illegal content" yanked the account of a client who was hosting some illegal content, as they do routinely. The webhost is part of a large corporate structure that ultimately has Jeff Bezos as CEO. Because of this, we know that Bezos, in his role as a private individual, as the new owner (not manager, editor, or CEO) of the Washington Post will, at some point in the future, exert undue influence to kill legal but uncomfortable stories for the rich and powerful. ....wait, what? I have no idea if Bezos will be a good owner or not, but this is the most tenuous argument. AWS yanking Wikileaks account may or may not have been a good idea; publishing the Pentagon Papers may or may not have been a good idea. Let's just accept that the former was a travesty and the latter was heroic. They're still radically different things. TL;DR: We have absolutely no idea what kind of newspaper owner Jeff Bezos will be, but we are getting a good idea of what kind of blogger Corey Pein is... (And if we're reading tea leaves, Bezos has supported libertarian causes in the past. Like them or loathe them, libertarians are the only real organised anti-establishment force in America; the flip side of a coin where Democrats and Republicans are only one face. As unlikely as it is, wouldn't it be amazing if Bezos leaned on the WaPo to hire Radley Balko? Now that would do some comforting of the afflicted and some afflicting of the comfortable...)
comice 13y ago
The rich and powerful already exert influence on the media - they fund it through advertising revenues.
- eli 13y ago
  Also, the Graham family wasn't exactly poor.
SuperContext 13y ago
So... no "benefit of the doubt" here? I think I'd rather wait 'till I actually get to read the paper - and let dem articles speak for themselves - before making a statement like "We Already Know What Kind of Newspaper Owner Jeff Bezos Will Be." But, hey, that's just me. And I am totally biased, I mean, I buy things from Amazon so...

103 points by r0h1n 13y ago

Tichy 13y ago

Amazon's job was not to be political. The WP's job is. I wouldn't draw analogies from one to the other.

rz2k 13y ago
I don't see how this article could neglect to address that Jeff Bezos bought the paper himself, rather than having Amazon buy it. Also, for it to mention Bill Gates without contrasting what he did to the tech world through Microsoft during the 90s with what he is accomplishing for the whole world as a philanthropist now is striking. The mistake may have been inexcusable for anyone who believes that transparency leads to better governance, but it was one decision, and we now know that every company we thought had a whole set of established practices as common carriers eventually caved to the federal government. I don't think it's clear internet infrastructure providers experienced less pressure from the Fed than the press did in the 1970s. Bezos may also have considered his obligations to the stock holders of a public company without the context of something equivalent to journalistic ethics. Anyway, I'd agree that we don't actually know what role he'll play with the Washington Post, or what he will do during the next 30 years, but we also don't know whether he'll be courageous or not in journalism from one incident.

temphn 13y ago

A paper can resist government regulation, but a normal business cannot (or could not in 2010). Bezos is philosophically an opponent of government regulation[1] and may have bought the Washington Post simply because he hated backing down in 2010. Now he has a weapon and can fight back. We might actually see much more reporting on the network of multibillion dollar bureaucratic TLAs that control our GOV, with the IRS, NSA, and now DEA scandals being just the beginning. [1] http://www.geekwire.com/2011/meet-shel-kaphan-amazoncom-employee-1/4/ http://www.geekwire.com/2011/meet-shel-kaphan-amazoncom-empl... Q: What would you ask Bezos if you sat down with coffee for him today? Shel Kaphan, First Amazon Employee: “The first (questions) that come to mind are personal, but one that I’d like to ask him is whether, even after what’s happened in the economy since 2008, if he would still contend that less government regulation is always better.” Of course, Sarbox did nothing to prevent the financial crisis. And Dodd Frank will do nothing to prevent the meltdown of the US dollar.

mcv 13y ago
> may have bought the Washington Post simply because he hated backing down in 2010. Interesting perspective. I hope it's true, but if it is, I'd appreciate if he said so.

yk 13y ago

Well, this may or may not be a case of "watch the hands, not the mouth." But at the moment we simply do not have enough information to speculate how the WP will develop under new ownership.

Ygg2 13y ago
True, though as the good old magic 8 ball says, all signs point to bad. Bezos simply seems like someone that favors comfort over freedom, but then again I won't judge actions that haven't yet happened.

ekianjo 13y ago

The title is confusing. The author says "we already know" but in the article itself, around the end, he admits nobody knows how the Post is going to turn out: "I have no idea whether Bezos has the wherewithal to expand at such a scale. I also have no idea what he has in mind for the Post and its newsroom."

Sven7 13y ago

The real question is - is there a better way to value, the opinion pieces of people who don't do anything other than write for a living?

res0nat0r 13y ago

> Remember when Amazon pulled the plug on Wikileaks? The classified documents being hosted on AWS were in fact illegal to do so, and thus against the AUP of AWS so it was perfectly reasonable and appropriate to pull the plug. The wikileaks data dump is in no way comparable to Watergate and singular reporting and investigation of specfic illegal acts.

mathetic 13y ago
Yes it is not comparable because Wikileaks documents showed people died without any apparent reason but the States being the States is immune to crimes against humanity. If you get bombed/terrorised that's policy changing, nation wide traumatic event and a good reason to bomb the shit out of the one attacked you. If you do the same thing to another country (read plethora of countries) then you first tag the journalist who has the balls to expose you, denounce him as a criminal and then call it incomparable to your little presidential problems. I don't care much about many traits you have just displayed arrogance, ignorance and indifference being the leading ones but such ugly patriotism is perhaps the worst of all and is the leading cause of where we are now as a world. I know this is the kind of comment that will get downvoted and considering the general climate of HN it should be downvoted but some people really deserve such harsh comments because their claims written in nice and harmless language is plain offensive to all the people US decided to fuck up in their history (and that's lots and lots of people all around the world).
- bpodgursky 13y ago
  What the hell are you talking about?
  - falk 13y ago
    Wikileaks exposed that the U.S. was bombing Yemen in secret. http://www.salon.com/2010/11/29/wikileaks_yemen_revelations/ http://www.salon.com/2010/11/29/wikileaks_yemen_revelations/
- skrebbel 13y ago
  > I know this is the kind of comment that will get downvoted Try interpunction, you'll get significantly fewer downvotes.

aaronbrethorst 13y ago

Alec MacGillis (the TNR author linked to in this blog post, http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114178/jeff-bezos-purchase-washington-post-bad-news http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114178/jeff-bezos-purchas...) is paid to generate controversy. He's complaining about how the new guard isn't really serious about the news and is nouveau riche (see: "$42 million, 10,000-year clock in West Texas."). Not that it's falsifiable, but I bet you that if MacGillis was a staffer at the Post, he'd be crowing about how this represented 'new digital synergies' (barf) just like Blodget is. "the faster-cheaper-further mindset" No, this would be the Sun Times firing their photographers and equipping their reporters with iPhones. I have serious issues with Amazon, ranging from the work/life balance of their engineers (I live about 10 minutes away from their South Lake Union headquarters, and have no desire to ever work there), to the treatment of their warehouse workers, but this is just pontification for the sake of page views.

SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
> Alec MacGillis is paid to generate controversy. ... and is nouveau riche Yeah, that's nice. But is he wrong? IMHO he brings to the table a very relevant point that others have not.
elsurudo 13y ago
Basic ad-hominem attack. You did nothing to address the content of the article. The article's main point has a lot of merit, IMO.
Uchikoma 13y ago
Ad-hominem attacks only take you so far.

greyman 13y ago

IMHO the author is too harsh on Bezos. Ok, Amazon stopped hosting wikileaks, but that's because they published classified diplomatic cables, which was probably illegal, and (only in my opinion) also controversial; i.e. it is questionable whether this served public interest, or was just an illegal act. [Now I don't say the whole wikileaks is controversial, only this specific act of publishing diplomatic cables]. If he will really stop some real investigative journalism story, which the public has the right to know, like gov corruption etc., THEN I'll be concerned. For now, let's watch what he is up to.

SideburnsOfDoom 13y ago
You don't pull someone's hosting, against the probable public interest, because you get a quiet word from a senator about something "probably illegal, and also controversial". You pull someone's hosting when you get a properly filled-out court order. > real investigative journalism story So are you saying the the collateral murder story was in no way "investigative journalism" ?
mcv 13y ago
Wikileaks was publishing on US war crimes and various secret shady dealings by various governments. Illegal or not, it's stuff that needs to be published. Bezos removing it before he was court ordered to, definitely counts against his credibility as a defender of the free press.

jval 13y ago

I think everyone's kinda missing the point here. You don't trust powerful people, plain and simple. Not because they're any worse than the average person, but because you can't do anything to stop them when they do something wrong. There's a reason why we have three arms of government.

qq66 13y ago
The media will always be controlled by powerful people. If a media outlet has a self-sustaining profitable business model, it will bestow power upon its owners and managers. If it loses money, it will be taken under the wing of an otherwise wealthy and powerful individual.
- alfiejohn_ 13y ago
  > If a media outlet has a self-sustaining profitable business model Take a look at who owns The Guardian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust In 1992, the Trust identified its central objective as being the following: - To secure the financial and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity: as a quality national newspaper without party affiliation; remaining faithful to liberal tradition; as a profit-seeking enterprise managed in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The Trust sees its main functions as being the following: - To secure the Trust's own continuity by renewing its membership and by dealing with threats to its existence; - To monitor the organisation, financial management and overall strategy of the Group, holding the board accountable for its performance; - To appoint and 'in extreme circumstances' to dismiss the editors of The Guardian and The Observer, - To act as a 'court of appeal' in the event of any dispute between the editorial and managerial sides of the operation.
  - lemming 13y ago
    This is why I religiously read and pay for the Guardian. They still run massive losses but I do what I can - they're the best news source I've found by far.
oleganza 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

Lazare 13y ago

Let me see if I can summarize this: Some years back, a webhost whose terms of service said "no illegal content" yanked the account of a client who was hosting some illegal content, as they do routinely. The webhost is part of a large corporate structure that ultimately has Jeff Bezos as CEO. Because of this, we know that Bezos, in his role as a private individual, as the new owner (not manager, editor, or CEO) of the Washington Post will, at some point in the future, exert undue influence to kill legal but uncomfortable stories for the rich and powerful. ....wait, what? I have no idea if Bezos will be a good owner or not, but this is the most tenuous argument. AWS yanking Wikileaks account may or may not have been a good idea; publishing the Pentagon Papers may or may not have been a good idea. Let's just accept that the former was a travesty and the latter was heroic. They're still radically different things. TL;DR: We have absolutely no idea what kind of newspaper owner Jeff Bezos will be, but we are getting a good idea of what kind of blogger Corey Pein is... (And if we're reading tea leaves, Bezos has supported libertarian causes in the past. Like them or loathe them, libertarians are the only real organised anti-establishment force in America; the flip side of a coin where Democrats and Republicans are only one face. As unlikely as it is, wouldn't it be amazing if Bezos leaned on the WaPo to hire Radley Balko? Now that would do some comforting of the afflicted and some afflicting of the comfortable...)

comice 13y ago

The rich and powerful already exert influence on the media - they fund it through advertising revenues.

eli 13y ago
Also, the Graham family wasn't exactly poor.

SuperContext 13y ago

So... no "benefit of the doubt" here? I think I'd rather wait 'till I actually get to read the paper - and let dem articles speak for themselves - before making a statement like "We Already Know What Kind of Newspaper Owner Jeff Bezos Will Be." But, hey, that's just me. And I am totally biased, I mean, I buy things from Amazon so...