[ajross]

This kind of criticism gets tiresome. Someone has to own these companies and pay the journalists. If they're private, then they're "owned" and suspect. If they're publicly traded, then they're beholden to "Wall Street". If they're publicly funded, they're "propaganda".

Please criticize the work, not the incentives[1]. In this case it seems like a pretty darn good piece of public interest journalism. Do you disagree?

[1] Example: Elon Musk banning journalists out of personal pique is a terrible thing, not because "Billionaires shouldn't own Twitter" (even though many people believe that to be true) but because censorship, especially censorship of inconvenient journalism, is evil.

[coldtea]

>This kind of criticism gets tiresome. Someone has to own these companies and pay the journalists.

Yeah, so why not one the biggest conflicts of interest there is?

Enough with this tiresome criticism, why not embrace acceptance of the status quo - perhaps with minor complaints here and there?

>Please criticize the work, not the incentives.

The incentives influence the work, including the absense of coverage in certain areas, the softening of some, the framing on others, in self-censorship and "knowing their limits" on the side of the journalists themselves, and all kinds of fuzzy ways that one can't pinpoint on this or that article, but are absolutely there nonetheless.

In any case, media power in hands of unprecendented private business power, is not a good thing, even if the influence is only activated once in a blue moon when it really matters - and even if it's never overt. It's that simple.

"Someone has to own these companies and pay the journalists"? Not really: I'd rather a newsparer is not operating, than owned and paid by the richest man on Earth.

>In this case it seems like a pretty darn good piece of public interest journalism. Do you disagree?

"In this case" it could be, but that's irrelevant. I wrote about the irony of WP covering an "undue rich person's influence on media" story, not whether that particular story is false. Hypocrisy is hypocrisy even if the other person really did the thing you accuse them of.

In fact, one would expect real misdeeds by the owner's rivals to be accurately reported, and bogus stories on non-existing misdeeds by the owner's rivals. What I don't expect is stories on the owner's own (and his friends) misdeeds to be accurately reported, or bogus stories on owner non-misdeeds.

[kodah]

Ignore the incentives and marvel at the output sounds dangerous and irresponsible. Maybe it's tiresome to you and that's okay - not everyone has the emotional bandwidth or energy to care about everything. There are a good number of things on this board that I entirely write off, but I'm glad somebody cares - you never know when it'll be useful to take these things into account given that they're often part of a long strategy.

I also disagree with your categorization of owned vs propaganda. People on HN generally respect NPR as well as many "owned" outlets. WaPo is just notable because Jeff has a history of developing a master plan years in advance where all his components are critical and subtle.

[ajross]

I ask again: do you have criticism of the linked article? Is it wrong or misleading? Clearly you think we shouldn't read it because of hypocrisy or something, but I have a hard time understanding why ignoring stories like this wouldn't make the world a worse place and not a better one.

[kodah]

No, I don't, because at this moment in time it seems insignificant. But, I've said that before and been wrong.

OP called it rich. It's a fair criticism - because it is rich even if true. These things are not mutually exclusive.

My point was, you're asking OP to be silent. You can also just ignore this kind of point, because looking at things from this perspective may not be in your interest. It's not particularly mine either, but I still think it's good not everyone likes my kind of ice cream.

[chipotle_coyote]

> It's a fair criticism

Is it? It appears to be "Oh, sure, it's okay when Jeff Bezos does it, but not when this guy does it," but what are the two "its" in question here? On the one hand, a mysterious, anonymous purchaser buying a small newspaper's archive in order to completely suppress it; on the other, a major newspaper was sold in the open by one rich family to another in part to ensure the paper's continued publication. I'm as up for criticizing the disproportionate influence of billionaires on the public sphere as much as anyone, but these two things are manifestly not like one another.

[kodah]

As I said earlier, from our perspective at this moment with the facts we have today they're not the same. I also said Jeff is a master at the long game and nothing he does is for charity. WaPo has some kind of purpose, so if this is an angle that people pick apart then to me it's just good auditing. I mainly took issue with the commenter telling someone else not to post that. It's easily ignored.

[ajross]

> you're asking OP to be silent. You can also just ignore this kind of point

No, to be clear: I'm saying you guys are wrong, that you're arguing from bad logic, and that taking your point on its face would require ignoring good and important pieces of public interest journalism like the linked article.

I certainly don't deny that the business structure of newspapers sometimes leads to conflicts of interest[1]. I just don't see that whining about it in the abstract does anything but drive people away from journalism they need to read.

To repeat: you (you, personally) should read this article, and the rest of the WaPo, even if Bezos paid for it. Because if you don't all you're doing is wrapping yourself in an information bubble.

[1] Though I don't for a second believe Bezos is any worse than "News Corp" or "China", or for that matter "Russia" or even "VoA" as an interfering owner.

[kodah]

Take a deep breath and reread what I said.

Now, let's start:

> I'm saying you guys are wrong,

I read the article before I replied to you. I don't think OP said "don't read the article". They called it "rich criticism" coming from WaPo. That says nothing of the author. Literally no one you responded to has said don't read the article.

> [1] Though I don't for a second believe Bezos is any worse than "News Corp" or "China", or for that matter "Russia" or even "VoA" as an interfering owner.

All of the above are ass, but we're stuck with them. Personally, I read WaPo, NPR, WSJ, and the like. The only ones I actively avoid are Fox, NYT, NBC, and CNN.

Anyway, I'm going to stop replying now. Point is, no one said don't read it. It's okay to read it and chuckle at the facts around WaPo simultaneously. Nothing is diluted there.

Have a nice day!

[ajross]

> All of the above are ass, but we're stuck with them.

Now that part I agree with! Now... why doesn't the same logic apply to Bezos?

[bmelton]

> They called it "rich criticism" coming from WaPo. That says nothing of the author.

To AJ's point, it also says nothing of the article, which is I think the point he's working towards. If your comment speaks neither to the author nor the article, then unless there is a reason to point out a conflict of interests, then it becomes a low-to-middle brow dismissal of the article in question without referencing it.

There are of course cases in which it is important to make conflicts visible. "Bezos Owned Paper Investigates Bezos Owned Book Company, Finds Everything Perfect" is too perhaps too obviously a conflict of interest, but merely pointing out the association everyone already knows is of low value without a reason to point it out, and I see none here.

Yes, there is cause to worry about Bezos putting his finger on the scales of reporting. That said it is virtually impossible for him to be involved with every article published in every section of their paper. So, TLDR, it's probably worth it to save allegations of bias for when they bear on the discussion.

[ffggffggj]

You can both be right, the journalists need to pay their rent, and this also forces them into a situation where their personal interests are aligned with those of the super-rich owner. Even if they’re explicitly told to ignore this alignment, it’s still there. The book Manufacturing Consent examines this relationship if you’re looking for a light Sunday read