1. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3906395
It seems like not endorsing candidates might be good for the Washington Post's business, by improving its perceived impartiality. In addition to this, the WaPo seems to have spent much of its history not endorsing candidates, and it has been doing (financially) poorly recently; perhaps this is a return to more profitable and credible roots.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/10/amazon-wants-to-depose-presi...
JEDI was cancelled (article also mentions results of investigations into Amazon's claims): https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/06/pentagon-cancels-10-billion-...
The lawsuit got tossed because it didn't matter any more: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-ends-amazo...
The replacement program somehow includes all three of the usual suspects, plus Oracle: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/323937...
These billionaires usually buy money losing newspapers, or social networks, for personal reasons. If I was going to bet on it I’d very much lean on a personal motive beyond money.
Are you confusing revenue with profit? Yeah, a lot of money pumps in one end of Amazon retail and out the other, but there is very little margin: the $550+ billion in revenue on the retail side, as I understand, brings in significantly less net than the $90 billion in revenue on the cloud side.
And government contracts, where one might expect support or opposition from a potential cheif executige who has made overt promises of purges and other uses of office to punish enemies and reward friends to make a big difference, are an important part of that (not just that one $1B contract.)
...probably at a way lower profit range than most corporate contracts given how demanding gov deals are.
Citation needed
I thought they had fabulous margins
Am I wrong
So without consideration for upside[0], one of the most emotionless decisions a top executive can make is when there is no downside versus when there is.
[0] After all, further upside is not necessary if you already have experienced enough to where the needle can not move any further.
It's always been the case. That's how Supreme Court works.
[0] https://www.npr.org/2024/10/22/nx-s1-5161480/trump-media-thr...
Where are you getting this? He is down against Harris in most polls, and neither candidate is clearing a majority. There are projections that he has a narrow edge in winning the Presidency due to the electoral college, but that's not the same as being most likely to win a majority (or even plurality) of the votes (e.g., 538 gives Trump currently a 53% chance to win the electoral college, while Harris has a 65% chance to win the popular vote.)
If you think betters do not have the odds right, you should start betting right now.
> If you think betters do not have the odds right, you should start betting right now.
Sure, depending on my risk tolerance and existing exposure.
E.g, Polymarket, which gives Trump a 65% chance to win the EC compared to 538s 53%, has Harris at 58% to win the popular vote compared to 538s 65%. (And while it is possible for the popular vote winner to have a mere plurality of votes, it is not possible to get a majority of votes and not be the popular vote winner, so, no, the source of evidence you cite does not support the claim that "by the looks of it, the majority of people" will vote are going to vote for Trump, but instead support that the majority will most likely not do so.)
Paddy Power (as one example) has grown in 36 years to now have > £11 billion revenue per annum with a net income of some £1.2 billion.
You write this, apparently sincerely, as if the other side of politics do not and will not attack their political opponents.
That makes no sense at all. If the primary concern was avoiding canceled contracts, it would be in his best interests to ensure that the guy who is threatening to cancel contracts out of spite would not be elected.
Pressuring the Washington Post to not endorse the candidate who does not pose that threat goes exactly against that.
It's something else.
So cowardice has been the greater virtue all along?
Has it come to this, that political cowardice makes sense? That it makes sense when Democracy itself is at risk?
That it makes sense in Journalism?
That it makes sense at the newspaper of Bob Woodward [1] , now run by a billionaire with no guts to stand for Democracy itself?
That other oligarchs are tilting the election towards the obvious insanity of a leader who, in word and deed, will dismantle Democracy to indulge himself and his cronies?
We have sanewashed madness and the end of Democracy.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Dies_in_Darkness
It’s pretty simple here: he didn’t endorse Trump. But he doesn’t want to get on his bad side in the case he is elected.
Make sure you take a moment to comb your moral fabric and see if that jibes with how you think the world should work.
> In a 2019 lawsuit, Amazon claimed it had lost a $10 billion cloud computing contract with the Pentagon to Microsoft because Trump had used “improper pressure ... to harm his perceived political enemy” Bezos.
The implication being that endorsing Harris might cause Amazon to lose out on government contracts in case Trump wins the presidency.
Untrue. At the top, "KEY POINTS: In a 2019 lawsuit, Amazon claimed it lost a $10 billion Pentagon cloud computing contract to Microsoft because Trump used “improper pressure ... to harm his perceived political enemy” Bezos."
Why not?
You personally can refrain from any speculation, if you wish, but it's nonetheless the most obvious explanation. Moreover, your own speculation is implausible:
> perhaps this is a return to more profitable and credible roots.
This last-minute backpedaling makes The Washington Post look much worse than an endorsement. The new non-endorsement "policy" wasn't announced in advance. It came only after the editors had already drafted an endorsement of Harris, and at least one editor resigned as a result. The Post now appears less credible rather than more.
What I see is a traditionally Democartic leaning newspaper, choosing "impartiality" as an excuse, because they cannot come out and support Republicans. And of course I believe that this is the choice of the owner.
The BBC is pro-UK government, who fund them.
To me only Reuters (disclaimer: I once worked there) and AP come to mind when I think impartial news.
What do others think? https://www.purevpn.com/blog/unbiased-news-sources/
The Guardian is a great source of news, and it has a curageous team of reporters, but even it has its biases. I recommend reading multipe news outlets and being aware what he individual biases might be.
You are not British, are you :-)
I can not really think of any truly impartial news source. Can you? At least no in the countries I have lived in
Such organisations for the general public are possible. You'd need a group that is interested in correct judgements on some matter and willing to form an organisation to pay for investigations on it.
That's not factually accurate. The BBC is principally funded through the licence fee (i.e. directly by the viewers).
Unfortunately I don't think there's a single such organisation in the world-- controlled-by-members newspaper. Even almost-controlled-by-members newspapers here in Sweden aren't fully subject to member control, with this typically being indirect through some board or similar organisation.
This is the precise opposite of what would be required.
The Guardian's ownership is independent
The Guardian's views are very much not. Very predictable
The US government punishing Amazon is not.
The first amendments limits the governemt in its actions, not the people.
Obvious there is judgement for when consequences rise to the level of being coercive - someone giving you a dirty look is not, the de jure government sanctioning you is. But trying to define rights binary-axiomatically is really just creating lemmas for cryptofascism when the preconditions have been met but yet the rights are still missing (which is exactly what the cancel brigades are pushing).
Their coverage of international events only impartial if those events have no effect on UK.
In recent history, apparently the last time they did not endorse a candidate was the 1980's.
You're at the wrong meta level - if the paper's owner is making the editorial decisions, there's no impartiality to perceive in the first place.
I mean, if the question at hand was "should the editors endorse someone?" then what you're saying could stand. But that's out the window if they're being overruled by somebody without even a presumption of impartiality.
I also can’t comprehend the benefit of a biased editorial department, from a business or quality perspective. A diverse set of views is always more interesting to read, but I’m surely in the minority with that perspective. If someone could explain the benefit, I’m very interested.
I don’t see this is any different than the media black out that nearly all corporate employees enjoy, that exists for one reason: don’t make your opinions appear as those of the whole. Looking at the mixed responses to all of this, across the internet, that does seem to be the case, where people are confusing it all.
2. Moreover, that whole question is irrelevant when the editors aren't even making the decision. If Bezos is willing to override them, then effectively he is the paper's editorial board - so there's no "diversity of views" to talk about, except within the confines of what he's decided to allow.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html#:~:text=Don....
2. I know some people say "straw man" as a swipe, but it's also a term of art for a rhetorical fallacy and that's how I meant it. The position you asked me to defend (that there's benefit in having a biased editorial board) isn't a position anyone here took, or agrees with. Hence the term.
3. "this isn't reddit" is a swipe - and one that's a bit mysterious to people who are unfamiliar with reddit, like me ;)
This makes no sense whatsoever. It is the editorial board deciding what candidate is endorsed by the paper. It is a company stance, made by the company's representatives on behalf of the company and based on the company's editorial guidelines.
I’d argue impartiality isn’t a thing in any human domain anyway.
* Effectively shutting down large swathes of the US economy during COVID, while allowing "essential" business to remain open. Where "essential" is arbitrarily determined based on the state governors political leanings.
* Biden-Harris admin strongly encouraging (ie strong-arming) social media companies to suppress what they deemed "disinformantion".
* Progressive state AGs using legal loopholes and technicalities to prosecute Trump, aka Lawfare. For example, a fraud case for overvaluing real estate properties. A fraud case with no victims that resulted in a $450 million judgment? The textbook definition of excessive fines as defined by the 8th amendment.
* Progressives stated goal to pack the Supreme Court, effectively neutering an entire branch of government. Thereby, consolidating power in the remaining two branches.
You believe people who don't consider Trump a fascist are delusional (close to half the electorate, if we believe the polls)? What actions or policies has Trump implemented that fit under that definition? In short, Trump being a fascist is not self-evident: It is your (and many others) strongly held opinion. One that is rarely backed by more than shallow progressive talking points.
Really?
Fraud is not a victimless crime
Can WaPo really be perceived as "impartial" if we know they already were going to endorse Harris?
- The rule of law and the republic as a process are superior to anything else.
- One of the candidates does not subscribe to these sufficiently.
In that case, and given the political duopoly, they could still claim to be impartial towards candidates. Their only allegiance/partiality would lie with the rule of law and the republic as a process.
Endorsing on a specific issue, party, gender, or any specific quality that a large number of individuals share, is not uncommon. The specific individual is not what the endorsement must be partial to. Maybe the choice (since it's inherent to the process), but that's the distinction that was being made.
>The Post’s decision has roiled many on the paper’s opinions staff, which operates independently from The Post’s news staff, a long-standing tradition of American journalism designed to separate opinion writing from day-to-day news coverage.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/media/2024/10/25/washin...
Just some context worth adding.
There's support in that Trump personally met with Blue Origin's C-suite, on the same day the Washington Post spiked their Harris endorsement—an apparent reward to Bezos, and one that put his business interests in the spotlight.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/2024/10/25/2024-ele... ("Trump met with Bezos’s Blue Origin executives after The Post’s non-endorsement")
This is true, but it shouldn't be viewed as unproblematic. Audience capture is a huge problem, and news organizations telling their audience what they here to the point that people get siloed in their own echo chambers is one of the main reasons why things are such a mess.
I'd say it's definitely possible to be in business and at the same time have business ethics, to care about the truth. I don't think it's inherently wrong to publish honest opinions, as well as funny comic strips, along with the other news, if it helps sell papers.
The problems occur when business ethics, and the truth, honesty, get tossed out for the sake of profit and/or partisanship.
Here's a front page title from the Nov. 5 1888 edition of the New York World, run by Pulitzer (yes, that one):
A Plot - The Republicans' desperate scheme to secure electors
This is reflected in news coverage. Consider how they cover things like Voter ID or proving citizenship to vote, which 80% of people support: https://news.gallup.com/poll/652523/americans-endorse-early-...
Or consider how papers coverage policies like affirmative action that supermajorities of Americans oppose: https://www.forbes.com/sites/vinaybhaskara/2023/07/10/americ...
Based off asking it the following 3 questions it might just be...
"Hey GPT, whose your spirit animal between Barrack Obama and Donald Trump?" It provided a neutral answer providing the pros of both dudes.
"Hey GPT, whose your spirit animal between Obama and Hitler?" It clearly chose Obama saying how rightfully so awful Hitler was.
"Hey GPT, whose your spirit animal between Trump and Hitler" It did not choose Trump at all rather just gave the rightfully so negative feedback about Hitler.
No fan of Trump or politics in general but if it happily chose Obama yet avoided Trump that seems odd (Trump is no way close to a genocider).
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/par...
> Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democratic voters would favor a government policy requiring that citizens remain confined to their homes at all times, except for emergencies, if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine.
> Forty-five percent (45%) of Democrats would favor governments requiring citizens to temporarily live in designated facilities or locations if they refuse to get a COVID-19 vaccine. Such a policy would be opposed by a strong majority (71%) of all voters.
That's a demand for internment camps. One famous academic went further and said it'd be fine to engage in mass starvation:
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/noam-chomsky-says-the-un...
The US needs to cool down the rhetoric on both sides, because it's an endless spiral of escalation right now. Trump isn't uniquely bad at this and the "slippery slope" was already slid a long way down, when he wasn't in charge.
This seems to be a general observation when looking at college educated people that they lean more towards the Democratic party.
Hard to combat such a bias.
Pew says 57 to 42.
Evangelicals factor into this I guess.
The right should just clean up their act if they're so butt-hurt about justifiably earning those labels.
It's like complaining that it's not fair that the vast majority of scientists are liberal. That's because the right wing chooses to be anti-science, anti-education, anti-choice, anti-intellectual, reality denying, conspiracy theory believing, climate change denying, and vote for someone who ignorantly claims injecting disinfectant and popping horse dewormer pills cures COVID, and legal Haitian immigrants are eating dogs and cats and geese.
that's the standard people are using and can be corroborated
It was a response solely to your first paragraph about what left leaning might be in contrast to, when it’s also true that everyone else is like “or their voting record”
you are the only one hoping for a fight or debate. you got it from some comments, naively assuming everyone that isnt affirming your feelings is a far right extremist, and somehow you have grouped this comment thread in with that immature pursuit
you sought to define what the “not left” is, as if suddenly it will matter and the senate will pass the filibuster for your party of choice instead of being 50-50 for 10 years straight, and I sought to define what everyone else was talking about: the journalist’s voting records.
but sure, keep trying your approach, its working so well.
There's support for Liz Cheney, a former chair of the House Republican Conference, coming out against Trump et al.
Are you sure "anti-Republican" is what you're seeing and not just calling out the MAGA faction for their behaviour?
At least you and I can agree how vile and disgusting that behaviour is.
the top 100 political articles from WaPo and the NYT from this year ...
Being opposed to MAGA and simply not supporting MAGA doesn't make a voter pro-Democratic Party nor does it mean they want to waste their vote on a minor Libertarian or other third party with the result that Democrats win.
The US electoral system fosters the stupidity that results .. the still Republican anti-MAGA are (mostly) afraid to vote Democrat, minority parties aren't viable, and popular opinion and public support for various policy is never reflected in legislation.
If the US had a better electoral system it'd see better outcomes.
not really my problem the general population is unable to comprehend second and third order effects of a global pandemic and the subsequent money printing that followed
> high fuel costs
gas is 2.39 around me. major metro area with population > 8 million
> record crime levels
where? last i checked crime levels are back to or below 2019
>illegal aliens
yeah? they’re the same ones serving me at the convenience stores, the restaurants, and the ones performing the vast majority of the labor that produces our food. america runs on the labor of illegal aliens, like it or not
>tax
my taxes are fairly low
Regarding the cognitive decline stuff I really can't tell if you're trying to gaslight or you really believe they are comparable. Biden can't finish a sentence. He's literally demented. It was clear in 2020 and his campaign was mainly him hiding because everyone knew he was demented then too.
You are aware that JD Vance is America's Hitler's running mate, right?
I was aware Trump wants sycophant Generals like Hitler had that'll do anything he asks and that many US Generals who previously worked with him are calling him a facist in clear statements.
maybe take a look in the fucking mirror if you want to stop being called hitler LMFAO
That's fine... For some, age does not really slow them down. For others it does. People just need to be real about it.
Editorials, by an outlet's editorial board or otherwise, have consistently been among the most popular content in news for over a century. That includes endorsements.
Obviously not.
I want them to name readers who seek out newspaper opinions.
One name to start with.
Do you seek out newspaper opinions?
I do.
Isn't that supposed to be news and not worthless institutional opinions on the presidential office?
> It's unlikely that an independent owner with no conflict of interest would make the same decision.
An unconflicted owner wouldn't endorse either candidate. In general, hopefully, but in this election, particularly.
WaPo needed someone to make a difficult decision, conflict of interest or not, to just rip the bandaid off of their imprisonment of endorsing candidates
that's over now. the end. the market is going to forget this was ever a thing.
That's the goal of Journalism. Newspaper only goals: sell newspapers, sell ads in those newspapers (and since it we live in the age of internet - their website).
> An unconflicted owner wouldn't endorse either candidate. In general, hopefully, but in this election, particularly.
unconflicted owner's opinion shouldn't effect editorial staff opinions.
If this is all we expect of journalism in a Democracy, then the current state of the "business" of "news" in the US should be satisfactory to all.
Straw man. I didn't say that.
It's not a maximum, but it is a minimum. Newspapers require money to operate, and they're competing for attention in a capitalist economy. No attention. no money, no newspaper. In a democracy, you can't force-feed newspapers to the population. They voluntarily choose to read or not read.
The "good news" is that many people in a democracy are interested in the hard truth. Nonetheless, it helps to package that along with softer marketing and entertainment.
WaPo's business is catering to D.C. professionals. The nature of the country's electoral politics is that roughly half of those are going to be batting for each side. It's a good business decision not to seem like you're rooting for one side or the other.
It absolutely does not. You have no idea what my political preferences are, and I'm quite confident that your guesses are wrong.
False, and ridiculous.
The customer is predominantly the advertiser. Newspapers publish opinions to have something to fill the empty space surrounding the advertisements.
This decision by Bezos is a shot across the bow in the right direction, in my opinion. Clear eyed news are needed and aside from FT.com (which these days is also trending toward alarmism) there's precious little left out there. I don't care about a journos' opinion, I really don't. I just want them to report about facts on the ground and not pick sound pieces for clickbaits.
The entire public sphere is freaking out about everything all the time, and catching sound bites, taking things out of context, lacking empathy for opposing viewpoints and clearheadedness. Alarmism these days is the default state. WaPo is participating in this hysteria campaign. Letting the hysteria come into your brain unchecked is not good, but that's the default situation for most people and it leads to alarmism.
I think things are much more boring than people make them out to be, and that it's much harder to keep this perspective. You can't make good decisions when your brain is conditioned to believe in a reality and near-future that is much worse looking than what the actual current reality and near-future looks like.
All this to say, I used to give into this alarmism. Post-extrication from this disposition, I try to be more self-aware and reticent to give in. It starts by seeking more facts and primary sources, or consuming summarized content from entities that are incentivized to, and with a culture of, sticking to the facts.
There's no evidence of an overall change in the newspaper's direction. Bezos did not fire all of the opinion editors, for example. Neither did Bezos announce this "policy" in advance. It was a last-minute retraction after the editors had already drafted an endorsement.
That's a strange way of putting it. Newspapers are free to publish anything, by the first amendment to the Constitution.
> but only if the opinion is the one I want otherwise it is not good business
I didn't say that. I said that people want to read opinions. Sometimes they enjoy reading opinions that they disagree with, and arguing with those opinions.
Sound point unless you figure Bezos is accepting government may be about to change?
I really want to challenge this idea. Businesses can have missions quite distinct from what the majority of their prospective customers would want.
If I had practically unlimited money I wouldn't ever think of funding a news organisation and then only have it produce content that customers wanted. I would have a purpose for it, stemming from my own ethics.
I think it quite naive to consider Bezos has not done the same and that this decision is simply in line with his personal political interests.
Neoliberalism is a really poor substitute for personal morality and accountability.
Failing businesses.
> I would have a purpose for it, stemming from my own ethics.
I never said that business is inherently in conflict with ethics, and I, as an entrepreneur myself, believe that ethics are necessary for business: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41951447
> I think it quite naive to consider Bezos has not done the same and that this decision is simply in line with his personal political interests.
I claimed that his decision is simply in line with his personal interests. Whether those are financial interests or political interests is difficult to determine. Nonetheless, the decision was bad for The Washington Post. Compare to Twitter/X: Elon Musk is indisputably using the social network he acquired for his personal political interests, and that has indisputably been bad for the business, driven away users and advertisers, and his creditors have vastly downgraded the value of the investment.
> Neoliberalism is a really poor substitute for personal morality and accountability.
This seems like a nonsequitur. How is "Neoliberalism" relevant? Is that what you believe I proposed? If so, you're wrong.
Leaving money on the table does not necessarily mean a failing business, except for some extreme definition of 'failing'.
I meant to argue against your first assertion, not your second; I'm not concerned with whether it's a bad financial decision or not.
It's simply practically driven. You can try to give people what they "need" rather than what they want, but in a free country and a free market system, people cannot be force-fed. They can choose whether or not to buy what you're selling. All the good intentions in the world will go nowhere if nobody is listening.
> Leaving money on the table does not necessarily mean a failing business
True, but I wasn't referring to that. Ruthless profit maximization is not the same as giving the majority of prospective customers what they want. The former isn't required, but the latter is usually required to sustain the business.
Imagine if a grocery store stocked only healthy food and got rid of all the junk food. It would go out of business, because people want their junk food and will go elsewhere for it.
He is the outright (ultimate, through a holding company) owner of The Washington Post.
Therefore there is no conflict of interest. He gets to decide what its interests are.
I think it is worth asking whether it is in the public interest to allow people with other extensive business interests to own influential media businesses, but that is usual these days. Most media is owned by media (and sometimes more) conglomerates with many interests around the world.
My point is that Bezos would likely make a different decision for The Washington Post if he wasn't concerned about retaliation against his other business interests, and in fact he allowed the paper to make political endorsements in the past.
No he doesn't. He can choose to do with it whatever he may like. But whether it's in its interest or not is a property purely derived from the current state of the journal and the market. Whether he likes it or not.
And, yes, the issue stems from business ownership of a so-called "independent" news outlet which has clear conflict of interest. Which is something that we should not accept and continue fighting against, whether it's usual or not.
How do you define "its interest"?
It is a business. It does not have interests of its own. its owners have interests - in this case its the one owner who has that. Its staff may have interests, as may other people, and there is always a public interest.
> the issue stems from business ownership of a so-called "independent" news outlet which has clear conflict of interest. Which is something that we should not accept and continue fighting against
I agree it is a problem, but, as far as traditional media goes, it is a lost cause. Can you see anything that will cause big media businesses to split themselves?
> Can you see anything that will cause big media businesses to split themselves?
Who said anything about it needing to be voluntary. Regulation is a thing.
You nailed it here: bezos, as the dude who owns the paper has a vested interest in his personal success, whether the paper succeeds or not. If it came down to him or the paper, he would choose himself.
The editorial team, as the people who run the paper and are responsible for its quality, has a vested interest in the success of the paper. They decide what the interests of the paper are.
If bezos goes against the editorial team, that is bezos' interests conflicting with their interests, and thus the paper's interests.
What defines the success of the paper? Why do employees rather than the owner (who ultimately appoints them) get to decide?
It is a business. If it was a non-profit organisation you would have a point (although I do not personally think much of the big non for profit media organisations I can think of). Even if it had a structure designed to promote other values over profits (as Reuters does) you would have a point. In this case, AFAIK, it is simply the property of its owner. People get to decide what to do with their property.
The people who run it, day-in and day-out, are best-equipped to answer this question.
> Why do employees rather than the owner (who ultimately appoints them) get to decide?
Because each employee fits the above criteria, and is thus better-poised to make such a judgement compared to one single person who is not. And when it comes to multiple-such, better-equipped judges, the disparity becomes starker.
> People get to decide what to do with their property.
This is a red herring. Nobody is saying bezos can't decide what to do with his property. He's just not as well equipped as Post employees, to judge whether his decision is good for The Post.
After all, having money obviously doesn't mean you have better info, or have more context, or make superior judgements. In some cases it just means you got a good head-start because your dad owned an apartheid emerald mine, or a portfolio of new york slums.
If a majority of staff at a news outlet are liberal/progressive isn't that clearly a bias and hard to call independent?
I just notice that people tend to only call out institutional bias in one direction
This is not propaganda, as opinionated journalism's objective is still to transparently cover issues it cares about without distortion or attempt at manipulation, which is very different from propaganda.
You seem to be pretty strident and inflexible in your thinking, so at least you recognize that you're unable to read anything that challenges your rigid precepts and offers an opportunity to expand your mind or engage in a real exchange of ideas.
And please spare me the predictable response, because it's clear that you don't care about democracy exactly, like so many others nowadays, it's an amorphous stand-in that allows you to thoughtlessly discard opposition.
> And please spare me the predictable response, because it's clear that you don't care about democracy exactly.
I will save myself writing your own words for you:
> You seem to be pretty strident and inflexible in your thinking,
The problematic aspect here is that the current business owner, Jeff Bezos, has a conflict of interest. Bezos is making a bad business decision for The Washington Post, sacrificing it and losing readers for the sake of his other business interests, i.e., government contracts. It's unlikely that an independent owner with no conflict of interest would make the same decision.