Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Washington Post editorials omit a key disclosure: Bezos' financial ties

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 305 posts

Re: Washington Post editorials omit a key disclosure: Bezos' financial ties

#21

Post by terminalshort »

afavour wrote: post #10
placardloop wrote: post #7

The title makes it seem like this is a major or systemic issue, but the article content essentially says this was a one-off, potentially a mistaken omission that was fixed within 24 hours. The article itself even states that the Post routinely discloses its ties to Bezos in its reporting and this was an anomaly. I used to read the Post (I’m not a subscriber anymore) but I do distinctly remember seeing such a disclosu…

The article does not say this was a one-off: > On at least three occasions in the past two weeks Bezos announced a relaunch of the Opinion section earlier in the year, I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder if there has been a policy change. Three times in two weeks is a lot. > potentially a mistaken omission that was fixed within 24 hours potentially , yes. Responsible news organizations post correction notices w…

In journalism you can safely assume that the truth is the absolute minimum claim that can possibly fit with the exact words used.

Re: Washington Post editorials omit a key disclosure: Bezos' financial ties

#22

Post by embedding-shape »

nickff wrote: post #20
afavour wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this was always the tell. If he truly cared about journalism and wanted to use his money to support it he could very easily place WaPo in some sort of trust he has no power over. And yet, despite publicly admitting the conflict of interest, he hasn’t. Only one reason why you do that and it's because you intend to make the most of your control.

It seems like the problem with WaPo is that it’s constantly losing money, and has been since well before Bezos bought it. This makes it difficult to be hands-off for (at least) two reasons: he can’t just put it in a conventional trust, because he has to constantly give the organization money (which is abnormal for such a trust), and (secondly) in order to be sustainable, WaPo needs to be significantly changed so that…

It's almost like trying to run a newspaper the same way you run a for-profit online marketplace isn't the greatest of ideas. Who could've known...

Re: Washington Post editorials omit a key disclosure: Bezos' financial ties

#23

Post by afavour »

nickff wrote: post #20
afavour wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this was always the tell. If he truly cared about journalism and wanted to use his money to support it he could very easily place WaPo in some sort of trust he has no power over. And yet, despite publicly admitting the conflict of interest, he hasn’t. Only one reason why you do that and it's because you intend to make the most of your control.

It seems like the problem with WaPo is that it’s constantly losing money, and has been since well before Bezos bought it. This makes it difficult to be hands-off for (at least) two reasons: he can’t just put it in a conventional trust, because he has to constantly give the organization money (which is abnormal for such a trust), and (secondly) in order to be sustainable, WaPo needs to be significantly changed so that…

I’d say the UK’s Guardian newspaper is a useful example here. It’s been owned by the Scott Trust since the 1930s:

https://www.theguardian.com/about/history

And it has survived without continual extra investment. Possible that WaPo is just managed badly.

Re: Washington Post editorials omit a key disclosure: Bezos' financial ties

#24

Post by cogman10 »

skybrian wrote: post #13

My initial reaction to the White House ballroom was “the next president should tear it down and put it back the way it was, just on principle.” I was surprised by that editorial and thought it made a good (or at least arguable) point that it’s needed and the next president will be glad to have it, instead of doing large official gatherings in tents. I’m more neutral on it now. I don’t really know what facilities the…

> it’s needed and the next president will be glad to have it, instead of doing large official gatherings in tents.

This may be true, it's simply the way that it's approached that has my hackles up. This is something that should have been provisioned and approved by congress.

> Separately, raising money through corporate “donations” seems like a huge loophole for corruption.

The US corruption laws are laughably bad. You don't even need this sort of loophole other than to avoid reporting on who's doing the donations.

There's basically nothing that really prevents someone from giving a Justice, Senator, congress person, or the president a yacht, airplane, home, or a "loan" that gets forgiven. The only real limits is that's supposed to be reported (and that foreign governments can't do the same). Yes yes, the bribery law states that you can't pay someone to perform an official act. However, if you simply give them a gift that doesn't count. Even when that person is actively working on official acts that directly impact you.

Re: Washington Post editorials omit a key disclosure: Bezos' financial ties

#25

Post by HillRat »

placardloop wrote: post #7

The title makes it seem like this is a major or systemic issue, but the article content essentially says this was a one-off, potentially a mistaken omission that was fixed within 24 hours. The article itself even states that the Post routinely discloses its ties to Bezos in its reporting and this was an anomaly. I used to read the Post (I’m not a subscriber anymore) but I do distinctly remember seeing such a disclosu…

Even now, the newspaper's reporters do so as a matter of routine.

Reporting and editorial are separate units in newspapers; the point being made is that, while reporting continues to properly disclose potential ownership conflicts of interest, editorial and op-ed, following Bezos taking direct control of them, are not doing so.

Of course, the Post is Bezos' toy, and there's no law that says he can't use editorial as a megaphone for his personal interests without disclosing them (or, in fact, even use the reporting side for the same purpose!), but you can't do that and still claim that the paper has any of the Grahams' pedigree left in it, and this is very much a change from Bezos' earlier ownership, in which he largely stayed hands-off on editorial decisions.

Re: Washington Post editorials omit a key disclosure: Bezos' financial ties

#26

Post by skybrian »

burkaman wrote: post #19
skybrian wrote: post #13

My initial reaction to the White House ballroom was “the next president should tear it down and put it back the way it was, just on principle.” I was surprised by that editorial and thought it made a good (or at least arguable) point that it’s needed and the next president will be glad to have it, instead of doing large official gatherings in tents. I’m more neutral on it now. I don’t really know what facilities the…

The issue is not whether or not the White House needs a new room, it's that the private funding model is an incredibly obvious avenue for bribery. Every single "donor" has immediate business with the federal government, and they've seen how easily Trump will sell pardons or diplomatic favors or merger approvals to anyone who pays him enough. There is no other plausible explanation for the list of funders. If this wer…

Such an article would just be repeating what everyone else already said. The editorial actually said something new (new to me, anyway) that added to the discussion, which seems valuable.

Re: Washington Post editorials omit a key disclosure: Bezos' financial ties

#27

Post by overfeed »

HillRat wrote: post #25
placardloop wrote: post #7

The title makes it seem like this is a major or systemic issue, but the article content essentially says this was a one-off, potentially a mistaken omission that was fixed within 24 hours. The article itself even states that the Post routinely discloses its ties to Bezos in its reporting and this was an anomaly. I used to read the Post (I’m not a subscriber anymore) but I do distinctly remember seeing such a disclosu…

Even now, the newspaper's reporters do so as a matter of routine. Reporting and editorial are separate units in newspapers; the point being made is that, while reporting continues to properly disclose potential ownership conflicts of interest, editorial and op-ed, following Bezos taking direct control of them, are not doing so. Of course, the Post is Bezos' toy, and there's no law that says he can't use editorial as…

Not only does gp seem to have a poor grasp on the differences between Opinion and news reporting, they also fail to correlate the problem with Bezos' ownership, so it seems to them like NPRs article is conflicting with itself when it isn't, in the slightest.

Re: Washington Post editorials omit a key disclosure: Bezos' financial ties

#28

Post by morkalork »

jacquesm wrote: post #6
embedding-shape wrote: post #2

> When it comes to the appearance of conflict, I am not an ideal owner of The Post. Every day, somewhere, some Amazon executive or Blue Origin executive or someone from the other philanthropies and companies I own or invest in is meeting with government officials. I once wrote that The Post is a “complexifier” for me. It is, but it turns out I’m also a complexifier for The Post. - https://archive.is/flIDl It kind of…

That's because even if he realizes the conflict of interest having a massive media outlet at your disposal is just too powerful a temptation to ignore for these fat cats.

I think they took the wrong lesson from that Mark Twain quote

>Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel

Re: Washington Post editorials omit a key disclosure: Bezos' financial ties

#29

Post by heroprotagonist »

embedding-shape wrote: post #2

> When it comes to the appearance of conflict, I am not an ideal owner of The Post. Every day, somewhere, some Amazon executive or Blue Origin executive or someone from the other philanthropies and companies I own or invest in is meeting with government officials. I once wrote that The Post is a “complexifier” for me. It is, but it turns out I’m also a complexifier for The Post. - https://archive.is/flIDl It kind of…

There was an ulterior motive and the impact was deliberate.

Further down the article:

> O'Neal was brought in by Bezos this summer after the corporate titan tore up his paper's opinion section.

> Bezos said he wanted a tight focus on two priorities: personal liberties and free markets. The top opinion page editor resigned. A raft of prominent columnists and contributors resigned or departed as well. Some were let go.

Re: Washington Post editorials omit a key disclosure: Bezos' financial ties

#30

Post by kridsdale3 »

davisr wrote: post #3

If you think this kind of reporting is cool, you should donate to https://fair.org . Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) has been exposing two-faced news for decades. They are worthy of your attention.

And now that Zuck has nuked Facebook AI Research org, they get their acronymic exclusivity back.
Post reply on HN