[jsmthrowaway]

A paper does not achieve the prestige and respect that WaPo commands by allowing it to be a conflict. Sure, there are a number of papers at which that could be a conflict, but Amazon or its customers reaching into the WaPo newsroom to spike, push, or alter a story would almost certainly trigger a mass exodus starting with the editors involved. Bear in mind that the newsroom employs people with their own, respected, careers to look after, just like when trading firms demand their traders sacrifice their reputations.

At that level, editorial independence is practically a commandment, and Marty Baron wouldn't allow conflicts like that to happen. Think about it, since any of that would have to go through him, the guy who went after the Catholics in Boston. You're telling me he gets to the Washington Post, of all places, and hangs up his integrity? Come on.

It's amazing how often those fake news theories fly in the face of simple logic, and amazing how effective they are at swaying people who do not utilize it or do not understand how a newsroom works. That's probably the failure we're seeing unfold, that journalism has emphasized content over form and failed to educate the public on exactly how it works, and is asking readers to overlook their increasing distrust in institutions. Journalism looking something like "I spoke to blah, she said blah," with recordings next to the text, rather than the way it's currently written in the third person, is probably a necessary evolution now.

[tradersam]

I completely agree with you — you're preaching to the choir, bud. But "conspiracy theorists" will make an excuse to discredit them, regardless.

[mcphage]

> But "conspiracy theorists" will make an excuse to discredit them, regardless.

Conspiracy theorists will always find because they want to. I don’t think anyone needs to worry about what they will or won’t latch on to, because worrying about it implies that if something wasn’t the case, they wouldn’t latch on to something else. But they always will.