So, if the WaPo doesn't criticize Bezos, it's because they're owned by him, but if they do, it's because of a 'reverse submarine'?

Quite the box they're in there.

Let me throw occam's razor out there -- unless Bezos and/or Amazon PR people leaned on the WaPo to write this story, then it's exactly what it looks like, a random writer with a critical thought piece about Amazon.

It bugs me that without evidence sedevach and the commentator he linked to just present something speculative as a certainty. HN comments just jump right into full throttle conspiracy theories and receive hundreds of upvotes. It's not like at the edges of the discussion and downvoted. These uncritical comments are frequently floating at the top of what people are reading.

If you've got evidence of Washington Post writers trampling their journalistic credentials and planting favorable stories for Bezos you should share that along with your accusations otherwise you should maybe hedge your claims a bit. Eh? Maybe go look up the authors for these pieces on twitter, they're often there, and just go ahead and accuse them right there where they can see it. Such a shameful thing to do in my opinion, and so far fetched.

Well, there's an argument to be made that captains of industry shouldn't own newspapers, full stop. That argument can be made without evidence, and there's some credence to it.

The problem with that argument is that newspapers basically aren't profitable anymore, so we have to choose between "news" outlets that skimp on all journalism costs and simply parrot stories from other sources, real news outlets owned by those captains of industry who are willing to run them at a loss for what amounts to vanity purposes, and bankrupt/soon-to-be-bankrupt new outlets with little-to-no future.

When someone comes up with a profitable model that can support real, independent journalism, perhaps we can start making that argument. Personally, if I compare quality journalism with a blind spot for Bezos, neo-nazi/alt-right crackpot "news" sites and small-town Romanians making up fake news to go viral on Facebook, I'm inclined to think that what little bias WaPo has isn't really that big of a problem.

It's simpler than even that. Regardless of whether the agency or the journalist is "unbiased", or even if Bezos didn't interfere at all, the fact that there's a conflict of interest heavily devalues the story. I mean by definition Bezos is leaning on WaPo, as WaPo is under his direct control.

I think the very fact that Bezos owns the Post means that any article published about Amazon (positive or negative) deserves an extra dose of scrutiny/skepticism. The bottom line is that there's a conflict of interest there, and none of us knows Bezos well enough to know if he's above this sort of pressure or not. It's highly unlikely that we'd ever find evidence of any wrongdoing, or evidence of lack of wrongdoing, no matter what -- if anything -- is going on.

I don't think we should assume the worst and discount anything WaPo says (or doesn't say) about Amazon, but I think it's important to keep in mind that Bezos owns the paper, and just continue to think critically about things.

Why would Bezos care either way? Seems like he has more to win by not being seen as a tyrant and letting his paper publish whatever he wants about him. It's not like a critical article about Amazon is going to sink or have any effect on that Titanic.

Actually Occam's razor would say that WaPo will naturally have a bias towards Bezos. That is the simplest/purest answer.

The simplest view is that Bezos owns WaPo and therefore he will have undue influence over WaPo.

I don't ever envision WaPo going on a anti-Bezo rant like they do with Trump/et al.

Also, occam's razor says Bezos bought WaPo for his own benefit. Nothing wrong with it. But people are so eager to tech gurus the benefit of the doubt or project some "saintly" traits to them.

Entirely off topic but your comment made me realize some people read acronyms as the letters and others will read the full wording. So I'd say "a HN comment".

Ok back to the subject.

"Substance is illusory, only appearance is substantial."

It took me a while to put to words what I find objectionable about your view -- it's intellectual laziness masquerading as critical opinion.

Rather than grappling with a tough problem, it advocates abandoning the problem completely into some sort of post truth fluff, then dresses that up to pose as wisdom.

There's no critical analysis of how bias manifests or the tradeoffs of that bias versus other biases that might be introduced by other sets of circumstances -- there's no meat to that line of thinking.

It's intellectual high-fructose corn syrup.

Tangential to the topic at hand:

The substance itself, if you look closely, is only yet another layer of appearance, slightly closer to the Truth - God.

I feel like bias is the lazy man's argument: "As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information."

So FAIR is a biased news source, and we should disregard any criticism they present about any media companies. See how easy this is? Didn't even have to think, which I suppose is the appeal.

You've got bigger problems if you're forming opinions about Amazon based on the relative frequency of positive vs. negative headlines in the news(a metric which is literally the article's concern). Safeguarding the integrity of input sources is only a hugely important problem if you also outsource thinking and evaluating arguments to them.