Accusing the Washington Post of Serving Amazon's CEO is Not a Conspiracy Theory

Recently, Bernie Sanders joined President Trump in accusing the Washington Post of writing negatively about him due to his criticism of Amazon.

"I talk about (Amazon's taxes) all of the time," Sanders said. "And then I wonder why The Washington Post, which is owned by Jeff Bezos, who owns Amazon, doesn't write particularly good articles about me. I don't know why."

He's using nearly the same language as Trump. 

The Washington Post and other media outlets described this as a "conspiracy theory".

It's not a conspiracy theory.

Do you know what is a conspiracy theory? Claiming that Jeff Bezos was the victim of an internal conspiracy by Trump and the Saudis when his sexts to his mistress were leaked to a tabloid.

And the Washington Post was all over that one rolling out multiple conspiracy theory stories based on claims from Bezos' pet goon.

Do you know what else is a conspiracy theory?

Claiming that President Trump wants to deny the JEDI contract to Amazon because the Washington Post writes hit pieces about him.

That's another conspiracy theory.

The idea that the ownership of a paper influences its coverage is not a conspiracy theory. It's common sense.

The media takes that for granted in the industries it covers, yet it repeats Marty Baron's nonsense about editorial independence, while claiming that Republicans and Democrats who question whether the richest man in the world bought a newspaper out of the goodness of his heart, or because he wants political influence, are engaging in conspiracy theories.

Rich men buying newspapers to pursue their political agendas is not a conspiracy theory, it's business.

The Washington Post lying about it, now that's a conspiracy.

If Marty Baron wants to claim otherwise, maybe someone can ask him why his paper rolled out crazy conspiracy theories about how the Saudis hacked his boss' pants.