The New York Times is getting a lot of flack for their coverage of the story of the firing of their own executive editor because she wanted the same salary as her male predecessor.
But the Washington Post, owned by Amazon overlord Jeff Bezos, is no better when it comes to addressing the abuses of their own boss.
The Washington Post is drawing attention from media critics who question whether the paper’s new owner Jeff Bezos is influencing coverage of his company Amazon.
Nearly one week after The New York Times reported on a bitter dispute between Amazon and the book publisher Hachette, the Post has yet to cover the story. Amazon has been discouraging customers from buying Hachette books by delaying deliveries, according to the report.
No one has criticized the Post of foul play — “I believe the omission is an innocent one,” Melville’s Alex Shephard writes — but they have noted that the Post covered Amazon’s 2010 dispute with Macmillan “at length.”
I don’t think it’s that innocent myself. I suspect there’s a good deal of uncertainty at WaPo at just what they can and can’t do when it comes to its new owner.
Jeff Bezos is certainly not known as a nice guy. He’s notorious as an abusive boss and Amazon employees have a track record of being unhappy. WaPo’s people have to be wondering it means for them to get on his bad side.
Bezos bought the Washington Post for influence, so he doesn’t want to be seen as its content overlord, that would devalue the paper’s influence, but at the same time he’s an angry man who has a history of terrorizing employees.
(And yes, he’s a liberal. Obviously.)
As of now, there have been two mentions on the Washington Post, both on blogs, about the case.
The story may not seem particularly important, but we are moving toward a new age of dot com structural monopolies by powerful liberal companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon.