[cryoshon]

Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. For the most part, mainstream media organizations are not really "checking sources" so much as presenting a coherent narrative that their advertisers want propagated.

I don't doubt that the original anti-Amazon article was a hit piece that was commissioned. That doesn't make its claims false, however.

[caseysoftware]

If it was a commissioned hit piece, that makes it even worse.

We have a "news" organization doing opposition research, calling it investigative "journalism", and then the editor defending their process and integrity without an appropriate disclosure.

I sincerely hope that isn't the case. I could see the FTC getting involved if it was.

[cryoshon]

That's exactly the way the PR engines work these days, though.

You pay for a column to advertise for your company, you get your column. You pay for a column to criticize your competitor, you get your column. You pay for columns to introduce new concepts that your company will use in the future so that the public has been primed for what you're going to put out there. All of the major companies do these things in order to stay in the public consciousness, and stay favorable.

Sure, these columns will admit "alternative viewpoints" in passing to maintain their veneer of credibility, but that's no threat to their actual purpose. The editor is going to defend their process and integrity until he is fired-- and firing him would represent a concession that mistakes were made. This spat with Amazon is good for the NYT, as it proves that they're willing to "stand up for themselves", which is the perfect trait for a proxy to have when you're paying them to go after the other guy.