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...

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.

One is entertainment. The other is the mainstay newspaper of the capital of the USA; one of the newspapers / magazines with the most political sway. He should be scrutinised for doing so.

Reading the article though, the title is "bait" coming from the NYT. The majority is just a summary of a very interesting interview in which he actually is largely positively portrayed.

Personally, I think Bezos has done a great job with the washington post. I've probably read more post articles over the last two years than in the previous ten. Would be nice to see the HN stats on that :).

> The other is the mainstay newspaper of the capital of the USA; one of the newspapers / magazines with the most political sway. He should be scrutinised for doing so

Why? Newspapers have rarely been unbiased or uninfluenced by money, especially from politics (whether they be left or right leaning), the fact that it changed owners doesn't mean anything?

Not taking sides here but will note that a newspaper shapes public opinion. It's not equivalent to buying a sports team or really any other purchase.

Good point. And with the recent talk about Thiel using his substantial resources to punish Gawker, maybe we should be keep a critical eye on billionaires buying newspapers.