Not sure national enquirer is a "media outlet."

In general I agree that the fourth estate needs protection but I don't think arbitrary words on newsprint automatically makes you qualified.

> arbitrary words on newsprint automatically makes you qualified.

Who gets to decide what is arbitrary?

"Billionaries destroying media outlets" is an emergent property from two facts: - Some people can't/don't get justice because they can't afford a lawsuit. - Rich people can give money to poor people to get them that justice.

In order for Bezos to destroy them legally, they still need to have messed up in some way.

It's all but inevitable that a news publisher will get a story wrong at some point, that's why corrections get issued. So it's still a lot of power to put in the hands of the already powerful.

There's a difference between a correction to a flawed article and attempted blackmail though... One is an accident that can occurre in the course of good journalism, the other is something else entirely.

Oh sure. I was talking in the context of Thiel and Gawker, not Bezos and the National Enquirer.

Yes, but this isn't an accurate description of gawker's case either. This wasn't a case of accidentally falling on the wrong side of the legal line and only realizing when it's too late. They repeatedly ignored direct court orders, eg to take down the video.

wasn't it generally agreed that the Gawker-destroying opinion probably would have been reversed if they could've kept it afloat for an appeal? the bar for "messed up" isn't where you'd think

Because the billionaire is not destroying anything. He is requesting that the government, the entity charged with protecting citizens from criminals, notices and prosecutes a crime.

The prosecution of companies and individuals for the breaking of just laws is something to cheer

Real media outlets don't try and blackmail people, as Bezos makes clear in his post.

But at the same time, Trump uses the Enquirer to cover his antics up. Today, my enemy's enemy is my friend.

Since media outlets don't engage in blackmail, there are none involved in this dispute. This is a billionaire versus a filthy, blackmailing rag.

Nothing you've said here is wrong. The enquirer doesn't meet the minimum standards of journalism, they are a blackmail rag. I think this could actually be proven with empirical data.