Kind of interesting that this article is coming from the WP, given their acquisition by Bezos.
Note: Didn't read due to Pay Wall
Note: Didn't read due to Pay Wall
If you don't believe me, you should go write a negative blog post about your company's CEO right now.
But the iOS app is blocking. Grrrrr.
A traditional submarine is when a PR firm supplies journalists with stories that are true, but just happens to favor their clients.
It tries to give biased information a patina of unbiased objectivity (to the extent that the newspaper is considered to be less biased than a press release).
This reverse submarine -- a critique of Amazon published by Jeff Bezos' paper -- tries to give what appears to be a biased news source a patina of unbiased objectivity by running what appears to be a piece that's critical of the thing it's thought to be biased toward.
Bezos can now say, "Hey, look at this Post piece that's critical of Amazon. Clearly, I'm not pulling the strings or censoring articles that make my company look bad."
But bear in mind that we don't know what's under the surface. We know what articles critical of Amazon he has let through, but we don't know what articles critical of Amazon he hasn't let through.
> Discussion of news topics with a point of view, including narratives by individuals regarding their own experiences
I'm not saying that the piece itself is unbiased. Opinion pieces are not supposed to be unbiased.
I'm saying that the fact that the piece was run gives Bezos the ability to say that he does not exert editorial control over the paper, because if he did, he wouldn't have let such a piece run at all.
Like any publication, the WP is what it is. It has particular staff, history, reputaiton etc, all of which make it strong in some ways but weak in others, including bias. Bezos' ownership of the paper is yet one more layer on all that.
There is, and never was, any alternative to reading stuff with your bullshit detector turned on.
Simply compare the opinion pieces in the NYT (more left leaning) to those in the WSJ (more right leaning) -- there is a clear and obvious bias toward the overall publication's bias.
This is more like when a scam university buys up all search engines searching for its name paired up with the word scam, and creates 100 single entry blogs called "Superfake University: Scam or Not?" that all explain at extreme length how it's definitely not a scam although although the outcomes are so good that it seems like one, and drop every synonym for scam or fraud you can find in the thesaurus, paired with the name of the fake university as many times as possible.
You and I definitely didn't read the same article.
If it's major news that you cannot avoid publishing, just report the basic facts with no commentary.
Otherwise you cannot really read the piece without entering a similar spiral of thought:
"Is it genuine ?"
"If it's critical, is it to make the point that the paper really is independent ?"
"If it's positive, how can I trust it, considering the source ?"
etc...
javascript:window.location=%22https://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=%22+encodeURIComponent(window...;
E.g: https://m.facebook.com/flx/warn/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washing...
Do you use an adblocker?