
Jeff Bezos Defends Decision to Buy Washington Post - hvo
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/technology/jeff-bezos-riding-high-defends-decision-to-buy-washington-post.html?ribbon-ad-idx=4&rref=technology&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=Technology&pgtype=article&_r=0
======
projectramo
Well, I don't really see Bezos' defense of the decision to buy the Washington
Post, because I don't see a critique of the decision.

The presumption here is that there was some kind of implicit criticism, but I
don't really see that.

Trump did attack Bezos, but that was not for buying it. (If I recall
correctly, it was some convoluted theory about Bezos worrying Trump would
increase his tax burden).

Is there a critique that Bezos should have let the Washington Post collapse
rather than buy it?

Have there been any reports that he is exerting editorial influence?

~~~
jamesfe
As a Washington DC resident, I will say I've read the post since around the
late 1990's. Although it's never really been a beacon of fine journalism, it
was a pretty dependable paper - lately though the articles have titles that
are oriented towards generating clicks rather than providing valuable
journalism.

Rumor from the WaPo staff is that there is a strong emphasis on building web
traffic and revenue, I assume that this is the cause for articles that are
less relevant to an informed understanding of the world and more relevant to
entertaining the reader's desires.

It doesn't take too much reason to imagine that if Amazon can predict and
suggest products that you may enjoy (and purchase) then they will predict and
suggest stories that you may enjoy (and load advertisements with them). It's
part of a growing internet-wide trend to provide a constant flow of agreeable,
"interesting" content that is tailed for you, as a unit of data, versus you as
a human desiring a balanced view of the world (to include opinions not of your
own vein).

However - I do agree that the article has not delved into this.

~~~
slaunchwise
"Although it's never really been a beacon of fine journalism"

Sorry, can't let this go unchallenged. WaPo was THE beacon of fine journalism
for decades. Life existed before the 90s.

~~~
danso
And even in the 00s, pre-Bezos, it was hitting stuff out of the park:

2014 - Stop and Seize -- this series about police confiscating hundreds of
millions of dollars from motorists without charging crimes was a hugely eye-
opening piece of investigative journalism...was widely discussed on HN too,
IIRC:
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/collection/st...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/collection/stop-
and-seize-2/)

2013 - The WaPo shared in the Snowden-related Pulitzer, but on its own, I feel
that it did some of the best work off of the material -- both in a technical
and journalistic sense, including this one about NSA infiltrating Google data
centers: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-
security/nsa-i...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-
infiltrates-links-to-yahoo-google-data-centers-worldwide-snowden-documents-
say/2013/10/30/e51d661e-4166-11e3-8b74-d89d714ca4dd_story.html)

2010 - Top Secret America -- this to me was a highly underrated project that
attempted to expose how utterly out-of-control and ungainly America's national
security apparatus is. If you read it before the Snowden revelations, you
probably would have just nodded your head:
[http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-
america/](http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/)

And many more...It's unfortunate that a lot of resources are now being poured
into aggregate-Upworthy-baity-headline crap...but honestly, even that material
is pretty good. It's just super unfortunate that their headline writer has
completely engorged themselves on social media marketing. WaPo truly has some
of the worst headlines of any professional publication today.

edit: as an example of some of the great work under the "PostEverything"
banner, which seems like kind of the WaPo's attempt to compete with
Vox/BuzzFeed/Daily Mail...I bookmarked this piece from a widow trying to
explain how "the second year without my husband is in some ways harder than
the first"...one of the few non-technical bookmarks on my Pinboard. In
retrospect, the headline isn't bad, but the writing is still profound...I've
actually been visiting WaPo via URL directly just to see what guest columns
have been published...just need a plugin to hide the headlines:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/04/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/04/when-
the-second-year-of-widowhood-is-harder/)

~~~
at-fates-hands
>> WaPo truly has some of the worst headlines of any professional publication
today.

Are you including the UK publications in this comment? Their headlines put the
US ones to shame most of the time.

~~~
danso
Well, I do think that I suffer from a bit of British-envy...years of Monty
Python/Peep Show/Ricky Gervais/Malcolm Tucker have conditioned me to think
that the British are the superior culture when it comes to wit.

I honestly can't think of many times when a UK headline has annoyed me in the
way the Wapo does. Probably the worst offender is the Daily Mail, but they're
merely artless in how they try to cram the entire article into a headline.
Sample from today: _" Moment of revenge: Husband is caught on surveillance
footage brutally beating his wife's would-be rapist to death with a tire iron
as he tried to flee NY apartment while still pulling up his pants"_

But the Wapo goes beyond artless, and right into the mindset of "our readers
must be fucking dumb to not be clicking on our stories in droves. Let's
explain to them why they should be clicking on our stories!"

\- "Trump announced his gifts to veterans. Here’s what we learned."

\- "Cancer deaths rose during the recession. But why?"

\- "The world is about to install 700 million air conditioners. Here’s what
that means for the climate"

\- "This might be the darkest theory yet about why Donald Trump keeps winning"

The one advantage of newspaper print is that, compared to webserver space,
it's very finite, which means that if a story was worthy enough to have
hundreds of barrels of ink tapped to make it physical, then it was a story
implicitly worth the reader's time. I guess now that you can just slap
anything onto a website that headlines need to be written ("X and Y happened
yesterday. Here's why it's important") as if readers now automatically assume
that all webstories are without value, and thus need to be constantly reminded
that some stories are worth clicking through.

~~~
pault
While your criticism stands, I think the reasoning behind the click-bait
headlines isn't "our readers need to be reminded that this is worth reading",
but an exploitation of human curiosity: if the headline contains an implicit
question, the reader is compelled to click through to discover the answer.
It's annoying, but I guess it works, since Buzzfeed continues to exist.

------
fiatmoney
You buy a media outlet because you want media power - ie, political power.
Direct profitability is a side effect at best, the point is to advocate for
policies and coverage that allow you to make money by other means.

Look at NYT's ever-so-delicate handling of Carlos Slim and issues that relate
to him, ever since he bought 1/6 of them. Not a whole lot of criticism of his
telecom monopoly or his effect on Mexican politics, lots of advocacy for
policies that drive international phone calls.

~~~
zjaffee
Sure, Carlos Slim owns a huge portion of the the NYTimes public stock, but he
doesn't have any significant voting power as that is held privately. If a
rogue editor/journalist criticized Carlos Slim, he would have no power to fire
them, where as at the Washington Post Jeff Bezos certainly would.

~~~
dahdum
The voting power is held privately, and Carlos Slim loaned them 250 million to
keep the lights on several years ago, before increasing his ownership to 1/6\.
I have to believe he holds _significant_ influence over their decisions, and
any journalist raking him over the coals would see their career prospects at
the NYTimes effectively end.

That said, Bezos owning the Washington Post seems worse still to me.

------
barkingcat
Why would he need to defend buying something? It's his personal funds (not
Amazon) so it's like having Steve Balmer defend buying the LA Clippers.

The LA Clippers sold for 2 billion. The Washington Post sold for 250 million.

Why is no one demanding that Balmer explain whether he's a good owner for the
Clippers?

~~~
weatherlight
This is why we should scrutinize such purchases.

title: "Amazon's CEO & The Washington Post Team Up to Smear Bernie Sanders -
16 Hit Pieces in 16 Hours"

[http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/8/1497827/-Amazon-s-
CEO...](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/3/8/1497827/-Amazon-s-CEO-amp-The-
Washington-Post-Team-Up-to-Smear-Bernie-Sanders-16-Hit-Pieces-in-16-Hours)

~~~
snowwrestler
This is only concerning if one assumes that Bezos had anything to do with
these stories, or that the stories were unfair in some way. To supporters of
Sanders, this might seem self-evident, but it's not necessarily that way to
the rest of us.

------
SCAQTony
The last sentence shows an extraordinary goal set:

"...He predicted that heavy industry would move off the planet and “earth will
be zoned residential and light industrial.”..."

~~~
keithpeter
Yes, that struck me as well.

I wonder where the topsoil figures in Mr Bezos' vision; the bit where you grow
the food. All life depends on that really.

~~~
anfedorov
[http://qz.com/493542/japan-is-building-a-giant-robotic-
lettu...](http://qz.com/493542/japan-is-building-a-giant-robotic-lettuce-
factory/)

------
pyrale
"he takes on ever larger civic and business challenges."

That's a nice way of saying he invests in lobbying tools.

~~~
alttab
Yeah, shame in trying to use money to get something done these days, like save
the planet.

------
kendallpark
I'm no journalism connoisseur, so take this with several grains of salt. I've
always enjoyed the WP more than other non-paywall news sources due what I
_perceive_ to be less political slant (beats Huff-post, hands down).

What would you guys say the political slant of WP is? Is there some quality
non-paywall news source I'm missing?

~~~
ghaff
From an editorial perspective, more or less establishment left-of-center. I'm
not sure I'd draw much of a distinction between it and the New York Times
although--at least historically--the Washington Post (unsurprisingly) majored
in US politics to a greater degree than the Times. In other words, pretty
typical US major urban newspaper.

------
6stringmerc
I think it's reasonable to view an outspoken owner has having organizational
and cultural impact on his business enterprises in concert with personal
gravity.

As in, if the WaPo is taking on some elements of Bezos' attitude or interests,
that's a natural evolution and adjustment. For example, he's ambitious, and if
he brings that ambition to the WaPo, then yes, it will likely be an issue with
'traditional' culture, or it might be a welcome change. It's hard to tell from
the outside.

To me, Mark Cuban is a pretty good example in his ownership of the Dallas
Mavericks. A relatively media savvy guy pushes his organization to be media
savvy as well. Recently as evidenced by starting up a local entertainment firm
"Another Mavricks Production" to partner with acts like Ludacris for fanbase
engagement. Is that "anti-NBA" just because it's kind of new? I don't see it
that way.

And, just as a closing thought, if Trump thinks the WaPo isn't treating him
fairly, well, if Gawker manages to survive long enough to get around to
flaying him in public, I'd probably click on the article.

~~~
tamana
A side from the stupid freethrow- interference gimmick, has Cuban changed the
way the Mavs play b-ball?

He does have more freedom to redefine the genre, without destroying the core
product, than a newspaper does

~~~
6stringmerc
Yeah, he hired a Hall of Fame coach and won an NBA championship. They were a
real bottom of the barrel team for ages. Cuban's fingerprints are all over
going from "Terrible" to "Competitive" and I think that has to do with his
wallet and attitude and attitude about his wallet.

------
perseusprime11
I totally see him running for the President in 2028.

------
thieving_magpie
Under his ownership the paper has gone even further south in terms of being a
trash publication. I've filtered it out of my news sites.

