Bezos Scandal: Prominent economist offered op-ed to WaPo at Amazon's suggestion.

[crazytown]

Last edited Wed Aug 14, 2019, 08:54 AM - Edit history (2)

Prominent economist wrote op-ed about Amazon’s new headquarters at company’s suggestion

A prominent Washington-area economist wrote an opinion piece welcoming the arrival of Amazon’s new headquarters in Northern Virginia at the suggestion of a company official who hoped to build public support for the project before a key Arlington County Board vote, emails show.

Stephen S. Fuller, a professor at George Mason University, also showed the article to Amazon public relations staff before publication and invited them to suggest changes — although he rejected their revisions.

“I want to [be] helpful to your — Amazon’s — mission and objectives with respect to its move to Arlington,” Fuller wrote on March 1 to Jill Shatzen Kerr, Amazon’s policy communications manager, according to emails obtained by The Washington Post under a Freedom of Information Act request.

Fuller first offered the opinion piece to The Washington Post, which turned it down. The Washington Business Journal published it March 21 under the headline, “Don’t underestimate Amazon HQ2’s importance.”

Fuller’s interactions with Amazon, which were not disclosed to the Washington Business Journal or its readers, raised questions about whether he was acting independently and transparently in penning the article, according to some ethics experts. The journal’s editor said the publication would have handled the article differently had it known.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/prominent-economist-wrote-op-ed-about-amazons-new-headquarters-at-companys-suggestion/2019/08/09/42b206b8-b885-11e9-b3b4-2bb69e8c4e39_story.html

[Loki Liesmith]

1. Did he believe it already?

I mean I tend to think the op ed was reasonable

[crazytown]

2. Its a question of ethics

"Fuller’s interactions with Amazon ... were not disclosed to the Washington Business Journal or its readers"

[yardwork]

16. The Washington Business Journal is not the WaPo.

Your OP still inaccurately claims that the Washington Post published the op-ed. In fact, they turned it down and then exposed this scandal.

Your subsequent posts in this thread about the Washington Post are similarly inaccurate.

Honestly, I recommend that you delete your OP and start over. The Washington Post did the right thing in this instance.

[ehrnst]

89. To someone with a hammer, everything looks like a nail... (nt)

[ehrnst]

39. And WaPO refused the op-ed, and then got the emails and exposed the lack of transparency...

[hatrack]

3. George Mason University, of course . . .

FAIRFAX, Va. (AP) — Virginia’s largest public university granted the conservative Charles Koch Foundation a say in the hiring and firing of professors in exchange for millions of dollars in donations, according to newly released documents.

The release of donor agreements between George Mason University and the foundation follows years of denials by university administrators that Koch foundation donations inhibit academic freedom.

University President Angel Cabrera wrote a note to faculty Friday night saying the agreements “fall short of the standards of academic independence I expect any gift to meet.” The admission came three days after a judge scrutinized the university’s earlier refusal to release any documents.

The newly released agreements spell out million-dollar deals in which the Koch Foundation endows a fund to pay the salary of one or more professors at the university’s Mercatus Center, a free-market think tank. The agreements require creation of five-member selection committees to choose the professors and grant the donors the right to name two of the committee members.

EDIT

https://apnews.com/0c87e4318bcc4eb9b8e69f9f54c7b889

From 2005-2014, George Mason University (GMU) and affiliated centers have taken just under $80 million from Koch foundations.

The George Mason University Foundation received $46,527,725 from Koch foundations since 2005. The bulk of this funding has gone to GMU's Economics department and GMU's Law and Economics Center. This $46.5 million investment represents half of the $90 million total that Koch foundations have sent to college departments at over 360 universities since 2005.

Charles Koch continues to finance and govern two political influence groups hosted on GMU's Arlington, Virginia campus. Since 2005, Charles Koch's foundation has given the Institute for Humane Studies $23,386,630, and provided $9,847,500 more to the Mercatus Center. Charles Koch is the chairman of the IHS, and has been directing the organization since the 1960s, before it re-located to GMU. Koch is also a director of the Mercatus Center, which he co-founded with Richard Fink.

In addition to financial ties, Koch has personnel involved with the university. Richard Fink, the vice president of Koch Industries, Inc., and the former president of the Charles G. Koch Foundation and the now-defunct Claude R. Lambe Foundation, serves on the board of directors of the Mercatus Center and the Institute for Humane Studies.

EDIT

https://www.desmogblog.com/koch-and-george-mason-university

All of this, so plainly in view but so strangely ignored, makes MacLean’s vibrant intellectual history of the radical right especially relevant. Her book includes familiar villains—principally the Koch brothers—and devotes many pages to think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation, whose ideological programs are hardly a secret. But what sets Democracy in Chains apart is that it begins in the South, and emphasizes a genuinely original and very influential political thinker, the economist James M. Buchanan. He is not so well remembered today as his fellow Nobel laureates Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Yet as MacLean convincingly shows, his effect on our politics is at least as great, in part because of the evangelical fervor he brought to spreading his ideas.

It helped that Buchanan, despite his many accomplishments, continued to think of himself as an embattled outsider and also as a revolutionary. In 1973, well before the term counterestablishment was popularized, Buchanan was rallying like-minded allies to “create, support, and activate an effective counterintelligentsia” that could transform “the way people think about government.” Thirteen years later, when he won his Nobel Prize, he received the news as more than a validation of his work. His success represented a victory over the “Eastern academic elite,” achieved by someone who was, he said, “proud to be a member of the great unwashed.”

EDIT

With Reagan, deliverance seemed possible. Buchanan’s political influence reached its zenith. By this time, he had left the University of Virginia. As early as 1963, there were concerns—on the part of the dean of the faculty, for one—that Buchananism, at least as practiced at his Thomas Jefferson Center, had petrified into dogma, with no room for dissenting voices. After a battle over a promotion for his co-author, Tullock, Buchanan left in a huff. He went first to UCLA, next to Virginia Tech, and in 1983, climactically, to George Mason University, not far outside the Beltway—and much nearer to the political action. The Wall Street Journal soon labeled George Mason “the Pentagon of conservative academia.” With its “stable of economists who have become an important resource for the Reagan administration,” it was now poised to undo Great Society programs. In 1986, Buchanan won the Nobel Prize for his public-choice theory.

But triumph gave way again to disappointment. Not even Reagan could stem the collectivist tide. Public-choice ideas made a difference—for instance in the balanced-budget act sponsored by Senators Philip Gramm, Warren Rudman, and Ernest Hollings in 1985. Buchanan’s theory found another useful ally in the budget-slasher and would-be government-shrinker David Stockman, who idolized Hayek and declared that “politicians were wrecking American capitalism.” But Stockman also discovered that restoring capitalism to a purer condition would mean declaring war on “Social Security recipients, veterans, farmers, educators, state and local officials, the housing industry.” What president was going to do that? Certainly not Reagan. As Stockman reflected, “The democracy had defeated the doctrine.” That was Buchanan’s view, too. It wasn’t enough to elect true-believing politicians. The rules of government needed to be rewritten. But this required ideal conditions—a blank slate. This had happened once, in Chile, after Augusto Pinochet’s coup against the socialist Salvador Allende in 1973. A vogue for public choice had swept Pinochet’s administration. Buchanan’s books were translated, and some of his acolytes helped restructure Chile’s economy. Labor unions were banned, and social security and health care were both privatized. On a week-long visit in 1980, Buchanan gave formal lectures to “top representatives of a governing elite that melded the military and the corporate world,” MacLean reports, and he dispensed counsel in private conversations. But Buchanan said very little about his part in assisting Chile’s reformers—and he said very little, too, when the country’s economy cratered, and Pinochet at last fired the Buchananites.

EDIT

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-architect-of-the-radical-right/528672/

[crazytown]

4. The University gave the Koch Foundation a say in the hiring and firing of professors?

What sort of racket is that? Naked corruption.

[ehrnst]

5. But...but... I thought the WAPO journos toe Bezos's line and would never upset him.

[crazytown]

6. WaPo haven't treated Bernie Sanders well

and he has been very critical of Amazons paying zero taxes. They toe the Bezos line when it suits them.

[ehrnst]

8. So WAPO writing an expose about Amazon being behind an OP-ED is "toeing the Bezos line?"

Did you miss this part of your OP?

Fuller first offered the opinion piece to The Washington Post, which turned it down.

Your accusation doesn't make much sense in light of your OP....

[crazytown]

13. WaPo are not honest brokers.

The toe the Bezos line to the detriment of progressive candidates like Bernie Sanders.

[yardwork]

18. This thread is pathetic. You completely misunderstood and misrepresented what happened.

Apparently you saw a gotcha! But it got you.

[crazytown]

42. WaPo does not give progressives a fair shake,

and you are suggesting Amazon's Zero taxes have nothing to do with it?

[ehrnst]

55. Are you suggesting that WaPO's breaking of the story on Sander's campaign staff labor dispute

has nothing to do with Bernie's attempt to discredit them?

[crazytown]

58. The timing was suspicious.

[ehrnst]

79. Timing fits right in with Sanders' attempts to discredit WaPo, doesn't it?

BTW - you still haven't answered my question about the credibility of - or the 'plausible deniability' by someone who states they 'didn't know' about a $30,000 harassment settlement paid by their campaign.

Any ideas?

[ehrnst]

57. +1000

[crazytown]

59. - 1000

[ehrnst]

81. -1,000,000

BTW - you still haven't answered my question about your opinion of the credibility of - or the 'plausible deniability' by someone who states they 'didn't know' about a $30,000 harassment settlement paid by their campaign.

Any ideas?

[crazytown]

84. I can't go there

without violating GDs statement of purpose. It's been done to death in Primaries.

[ehrnst]

100. Bull. To answer it would damage your argument about "organ grinders" knowing everything

that goes on in their organization..

Stating facts about the 2016 primaries doesn't violate anything.

So, we know what your answer is. The rules that you apply to everyone else you don't apply to Senator Sanders. Because REASONS.

[crazytown]

102. This is about Bezos not Sanders.

I'll leave it at that.

[ehrnst]

105. It's about you not directing the same standards of "plausible deniability" at

other well known micromanaging public figures who clearly violate the standards you set for WaPO.

That's why you won't answer. You would have to choose between:

discrediting your own 'proof' of Bezos' direction of everything from the top, which is a generalized accusation about micromanagers always giving the orders for everything... and

Damning one of your favorite politicians for the very same.

So you just avoid answering.

But your evasions and attempts to derail that question pretty much say it all.

[yardwork]

112. You brought up Sanders in this thread.

[LanternWaste]

82. While you make many allegations...

you fail to support any of them with objective evidence, merely post hoc fallacies.

[ehrnst]

85. Because they broke a true story about Bernie's campaign staff's labor dispute?

Speaking of the topic of "honest brokers" - you still haven't answered my question about the credibility of - or the 'plausible deniability' by someone who states they 'didn't know' about a $30,000 harassment settlement paid by their own campaign.

Any ideas?

[dawg day]

114. I'm not an Amazon billionaire, and I criticize Sanders (and other candidates)--

(Warren's at the moment the only one I find myself loving unconditionally, and that might change.

And I'm not toeing any line, just doing my civic duty of evaluating the Motley Crue to eventually settle on.
There has to be more evidence that Bezos interfered than, you know, WaPo is insufficiently approving of Sanders.

It would be biased to AVOID criticizing one candidate just because it might "look biased". That is, very likely, how the execrable Trump blundered in-- the MSM felt like they had to treat him with kid gloves perhaps because they loathed him.

But if there's some successful Bezos interference... well, that would be par for the course-- owners and publishers have often interfered when they can in journalism, for good or ill. I remember when Robert McCormick decreed that the Chicago Tribune would now help simplify the English spelling, and editors had to change "through" to "thru" and "though" to "tho."

Benign enough, but I bet there were more brutal interferences.

[yardwork]

7. The headline is wrong. The Washington Post turned down the piece.

The op-ed was not published by the Washington Post and this is not a "WaPo scandal."

Please correct your OP.

[ehrnst]

9. And then WAPO wrote this expose of Amazon and this professor. (nt)

[yardwork]

11. Correct. The OP is completely inaccurate.

[crazytown]

10. Have corrected my OP

Thank you. I misread the article.

[yardwork]

12. Your sub-header is still incorrect. There was no WaPo op-ed.

[crazytown]

14. Edited.

It now reads as posted in WaPo.

[yardwork]

21. No it doesn't. Lol.

[crazytown]

28. Prove it.

[ehrnst]

31. Prove that the story states that Amazon suggested he offer it to WaPO

It states that an Amazon company official suggested he write an Op-Ed welcoming them prior to the Arlington County Board meeting.

There are many publications in the area, and he offered it to one, and they published it.

Your headline would not pass muster in any newspaper because it implies things not in the article.

[crazytown]

33. OH ... and he just happened to offer it to WaPo?

What a coincidence! Peel me a grape.

[ehrnst]

45. WaPO is a local paper to Arlington, VA

Look at a map... or look at the source of your OP.

Your OPed is from the METRO Virginia section of WaPO

[ehrnst]

60. Um.... look at the "local" by the headline.

But since you seem to be creating scenarios that are not in the article, maybe you ignored this which is in the article:

Here - you won't even need to click on the link...

[crazytown]

66. So you tell me,

what is the significance of this being a local story? And what has this got to do with Bezos' dirty tricks?

[ehrnst]

98. You were the one stating that offering it to the WaPO was evidence that

Bezos was involved... and showed nefarious intent. I showed you that WaPo was a newspaper local to the subject of the OP... and now you're embarassed that I shot that part of your conspiracy theory surrounding this down.

Don't be disingenous.

BTW - you still haven't answered my question about the credibility of - or the 'plausible deniability' by someone who states they 'didn't know' about a $30,000 harassment settlement paid by their campaign.

Any ideas?

[ehrnst]

15. Actually, Bezos isn't the subject of the article, or mentioned. How is that 'correcting' it?

A correction would be "WAPO: Prominent economist offered op-ed to WaPo at Amazon's suggestion. WaPO declined"

As it stands, your headline would be as correct as "Bernie Sanders scandal: Campaign settled a $30,000 harassment lawsuit"

[yardwork]

19. Bezos himself suggested this? You know this how?

[crazytown]

22. Ah ...

"Prominent economist wrote op-ed about Amazon’s new headquarters at company’s suggestion"

The idea Amazon would suggest an op-ed without Bezos' imprimatur is absurd.

[yardwork]

23. I'm laughing so hard I can't breathe!

Do you really think that Jeff Bezos controls everything the Amazon pr dept dreams up?

If Bezos is that powerful, how did he let his newspaper expose this?

[crazytown]

26. So, Amazon's PR department are loose canons

suggesting op-eds about something as Amazon's new HQ without the owner's knowledge? If you know anything about Amazon, you will know Jeff is a micro-managing control freak.

[ehrnst]

47. So now you've veered completely away from the actual content and implications of a WaPO article

exposing this link.


But I'll play your game: So, what in your theory is the reason that Bezos wanted this expose written?


And what about a politician who is known for micromanaging his campaigns saying that they 'didn't know" about a $30,000 harassment settlement against his campaign?

[crazytown]

51. "So, what in your theory is the reason that Bezos wanted this expose written?"

To get the best possible deal for Amazon's second headquarters. Doh.

[ehrnst]

62. Nice try at evasion ... why would he allow the expose that you are linking to in your OP?

[crazytown]

64. Plausible deniability.

[ehrnst]

69. So, let me get this straight...

1. Jeff Bezos orders his minions to tell a local professor to write an op-ed to publish in WaPO to influence the Arlington county board - which has already accepted the Amazon offer, for final approval of the benefits package.

2. The professor does.

3. Bezos then orders the Op-ed not to be published in WaPO.

4. Then he orders the WaPO staff to foia the professors emails with Amazon, then publish a story in the WaPO about the lack of transparency that Amazon and the professor showed - thereby giving him 'plausible deniability' for the Op-ed?

For an evil oligharch, he sure isn't very smart, is he?

Wouldn't it have been much more effective to have just skipped a whole bunch of steps to have told him not to offer it to WaPO?

BTW.... you still haven't answered my question about the credibility of a candidate, known for being a micromanager, when they state they "had no idea" that his campaign paide a $30,000 harassment settlement?

Any thoughts? You seem to be in the know about "organ grinders" and "plausible deniability."

[ehrnst]

108. One could say that about Bernie Sanders hands on management.

But you believe that someone could write a check for $30,000 dollars from his campaign without his knowledge.

[ehrnst]

34. Actually, the article states that it was " a company executive" not "the company"

You keep trying to shoehorn this into a sinister narrative that directly involves Bezos.

The idea Amazon would suggest an op-ed without Bezos' imprimatur is absurd.

Would you also say that about the idea a campaign wrote a $30,000 check to settle a harassment suit without the candidate's imprimatur to be absurd as well?

[ehrnst]

32. Where does it say that the "company official" was Bezos?

[crazytown]

35. Leaving it to an employee to do the dirty work

does not absolve the organ grinder.

[yardwork]

20. And now you've edited your OP again and it is NOT the same as the WaPo headline.

This is the funniest thing I've seen in ages. You are desperate to blame the WaPo for something, aren't you?

This is all about Bernie, isn't it?

[crazytown]

24. The sub-head is exactly the same as the WaPo headline.

I'm no Bernie Bro but I am a stickler for the independence of the fifth estate.

[ehrnst]

36. Your headline would not pass muster with any reputable editor

It embellishes in a way that is not supported in the story.

[crazytown]

38. You can't embellish the fact

WaPa have a negative bias against progressives.

[ehrnst]

41. That's not a fact. That's an opinion. And it's calling Marty Baron a liar. (nt)

[crazytown]

46. Really?

Senator Sanders: "I talk about (Amazon's taxes) all of the time ...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."

Why indeed? Rocket science not required.

[ehrnst]

52. So, yes, you are calling Marty Baron a liar. (nt)

[crazytown]

56. The liar here is the 'Prominent Economist'

who just happened to neglect to mention he was an Amazon sock puppet.

[ehrnst]

70. You are calling Marty Baron a liar for saying that Bezos does not interfer in the newsroom. (nt)

[crazytown]

92. Yoh keep trying to put words in my mouth.

I never said Marty Baron is a liar. No one's recollections are 100% reliable.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/false-memories

[ehrnst]

97. Actually, you're the one doing the inventing. Your statements directly contradict what Baron says

about the independence of the newsroom.

He states that his newsroom is independent of Bezos' business interests. You state that it's not independent, that the newsroom "toes the line" of Jeff Bezos.

Therefore you're saying that he's lying. Or are you saying that he has no idea what he's doing? Because there's a lot of evidence to the contrary on that.

Again... why should we believe you about the newsroom's independence over editor Marty Baron's statements?

BTW - you still haven't answered my question about the credibility of - or the 'plausible deniability' by someone who states they 'didn't know' about a $30,000 harassment settlement paid by their campaign.

Any ideas?

[ehrnst]

25. Still incorrect: Nothing in the article about Amazon suggesting he write a "WaPO OP-ED."

You're trying to misrepresent this WaPO expose of a hidden conflict of interest bewteen the Professor and Amazon as somehow being Bezos tellling Amazon to get this OP-ed into WAPO.

And WaPO turned it down.

Amazon suggested that he write tan opinion piece to be published locally to Arlington County prior to a county vote, and this was discovered by a FOIA request of his emails by the WAPO staff.

An actual correction would be to use the title of the article with WaPO: starting it.

But that doesn't push your particular, unsupported narrative that Bezos, and by extension WaPO are not credible when writing about Sanders, because they they don't quash stories that would displease Sanders and his supporters - like the one about the labor dispute his campaign is having.

[crazytown]

27. Oh. And Bernie's endless criticism of Amazon paying Zero Corporate Taxes

has nothing to do with the negative bias against him in WaPo?

[ehrnst]

43. So WaPo's breaking the story about Bernie's campaign staff's labor dispute doesn't have anything

to do with his grudge against a pulitzer prize winning publication with Marty Baron at the helm?

[ehrnst]

29. Subject text is misleading: Bezos is not mentioned in the article, nor was it an "op-ed to WaPO"

This is pushing a false "scandal" that Bezos secretly directed this pro-Amazon op-ed to be written for publication in WaPO, and therefore WAPO can't be trusted to write credible articles on Sanders, after Sanders and then his supporters got upset that WaPO broke the story on the labor dispute in his campaign stafr.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-defends-campaign-salaries-after-post-report-of-labor-dispute-with-unionized-organizers/2019/07/19/c60558ec-aa68-11e9-86dd-d7f0e60391e9_story.html

WaPO turned down the OP-ed, which was then offered to another paper, and then the WaPO staff then investigated the ties to Amazon, and published the connection.

This story refutes both your accusations and Sanders' of Bezo's having a hand in what they report.

Marty Baron has far, far more credibility, and he states that Bezos doesn't have any say in what gets reported.

[crazytown]

30. Amazon does not act on matters as important as a new corporate HQ

without the knowledge and sanction of Jeff Bezos. common sense.

[ehrnst]

37. So, then... why didn't WaPO print the Op-ed? And why did it expose the connection between

the prof and the Amazon staff?

Are you saying that Marty Baron is a liar? Because essentially, that's your position.

[crazytown]

40. If you've got a bunch of stooges lining up to submit bogus op-eds

to your own publication, and one gets under the wire ... mission accomplished. I suggest you read up on what happened to The Times / Sunday Times.

[ehrnst]

44. Red herring... Your OP disproves the smears that Sanders supporters are promoting against WaPO

Discrediting the free and credible fifth estate for reporting the facts is something that Trump does, and Russia wants.

[crazytown]

48. Are you really comparing Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump?

Jeff Bezos and Rupert Murdoch are a much closer comparison. Both swore blind that the editorial independence and budget of their revered publications would be completely protected under their benevolent watch.

[ehrnst]

49. Actually, I'm echoing what a lot of people are saying

Sanders' comments drew comparisons to the rhetoric of President Donald Trump, who has linked what he sees as the Post's unfair coverage of his administration to Bezos, calling the newspaper a tax scam and a lobbying tool for the Amazon CEO and labeling it the “Amazon Washington Post.”

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/13/bernie-sanders-bezos-washington-post-1461360

[crazytown]

73. The Amazon Washington Post?

https://www.amazon.com/Washington-Post-Kindle-Ad-Free/dp/B000HC48T0/ref=sr_1_2?crid=10YA2C5HL3ORQ&keywords=washington+post+subscription&qid=1565792091&s=gateway&sprefix=Washington+Post%2Caps%2C369&sr=8-2

[ehrnst]

93. Ok...

BTW - you still haven't answered my question about the credibility of - or the 'plausible deniability' by someone who states they 'didn't know' about a $30,000 harassment settlement paid by their campaign.

Any ideas?

[ehrnst]

94. "Amazon NPR"?

https://www.npr.org/2019/08/13/750800062/sanders-again-attacks-amazon-this-time-pulling-in-the-washington-post

The remark sounded an awful lot like the kind of criticism leveled by someone else.

"...[T]he failing New York Times and the Amazon Washington Post do nothing but write bad stories even on very positive achievements - and they will never change!" President Trump tweeted last year.

BTW - you STILL haven't answered my question about the credibility of - or the 'plausible deniability' by someone who states they 'didn't know' about a $30,000 harassment settlement paid by their campaign.

Scared to?

[crazytown]

96. The "$30,000 harassment settlement paid by their campaign"

has been done to death in Primaries. It does not belong in GD.

[ehrnst]

111. So no comeback about "Amazon NPR" or "Amazon USA Today?"

Must have stung...

[ehrnst]

95. "Amazon USA Today?"

President Donald Trump has echoed similar criticism of The Post, using the hashtag #AmazonWashingtonPost in tweets and accusing the newspaper of furthering Amazon's corporate goals.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2019/08/13/bernie-sanders-criticizes-washington-post-coverage-baron-responds/1994986001/




BTW - you still haven't answered my question about the credibility of - or the 'plausible deniability' by someone who states they 'didn't know' about a $30,000 harassment settlement paid by their campaign.

Afraid it will show a double standard not really consistent with a respect for facts?

[ehrnst]

50. Are you really calling Marty Baron a liar? What credibility do you have to imply that? (nt)

[crazytown]

53. Better editors than Marty Baron have buckled

under the weight of the Murdoch empire. Whether Bezos has the time and inclination to really put the screws on WaPo, only time will tell.

[ehrnst]

54. So you are calling Marty Baron a liar. Why should I believe you more than him? (nt)

[crazytown]

61. Follow the money

™ 1974

[ehrnst]

63. Not seeing where that gives you more credibility than Marty Baron.

Can you splain?

Like you haven't splained why Bezos would have allowed the Wapo staff to expose the professor and Amazon, if he's the 'organ grinder" behind the OP getting written?

Or why wapo didn't publish it?

[crazytown]

65. I'm not sure I follow you here.

(and I'm getting tired of harassment)

[ehrnst]

72. I asked you how this makes you more credible than Marty Baron. That's pretty clear.

You seem just fine, and not "tired" at all, especially in the posts where you try to evade answering.

BTW - you still haven't answered my question about the credibility of - or the 'plausible deniability' by someone who states they 'didn't know' about a $30,000 harassment settlement paid by their campaign.

Any ideas?

[LanternWaste]

88. Why not simply provide us with objective evidence?

Why not simply provide us with objective evidence that would support or strengthen your conclusions, rather than simply making allegations and bumper stickers?

You know... critical thought, the scientific method, the stuff we use to speak with credibility.

[ehrnst]

91. To someone with a hammer, everything looks like a nail

Even when it's their own foot, and everyone else is pointing that out...

[yardwork]

67. Bezos owns the Washington Post, so why would he "put the screws" on it?

This thread is hilarious.

[crazytown]

68. Murdock doesn't 'tell' his editors what to do,

he doesn't have to. Bezos runs Amazon under a climate of fear. Corporate cultures are contagious.

[ehrnst]

71. You really think Marty Baron is a scared liar? He took on the Boston Catholic Archdiocese...

Keep digging...

[crazytown]

75. Whatever

[yardwork]

76. It sounds like real journalism isn't an interest of yours.

[crazytown]

80. What Murdoch has done to 'real journalism' is beyond compare.

Whether Bezos wants to follow that path is up to him. Lining up stooges with bogus op-eds is a promising start.

[ehrnst]

110. You haven't supplied any evidence other than a conspiracy theory

that Bezos was behind the professor writing the op-ed.

So why do you think that the professor rejected any edits made by the person at Amazon, and was allowed to submit it anyway?

[ehrnst]

87. Unless it's praising Senator Sanders, how could it possibly be 'real' journalism?

That seems to be the metric.

[ehrnst]

77. Good choice to fold when you're holding a poor hand.

[yardwork]

74. So Bezos controls the actions of every Amazon employee, but none at the WaPo?

Wouldn't it be more strategic to control the newspaper? In fact, aren't you stating that Bezos is in fact controlling the editorial content of the paper as it pertains to coverage of the Sanders campaign?

And you thought this article - which you admit you misread - proved that the WaPo was caught in an unethical decision, which is why you posted the OP. Except the actual events showed that the Washington Post acted with journalistic integrity in this case, so you.... blame the owner anyway?

This is an example of confirmation bias.

[crazytown]

78. Um ...

If you have given guarantees of editorial independence, as Bezos did with The Washington Post, and Murdoch did to The Times / Sunday Times, discretion is the better part of valor.

[ehrnst]

83. So you're saying that Marty Baron is lying when he says that he is?

Why should we believe you and not him?

Got any Pulitzers to share?

[crazytown]

86. If Marty Baron is all that you say he is,

the proof of the pudding will be whether he resigns.

[ehrnst]

90. Why should be believe he is what you say he is? He is a celebrated journalist and editor.

And you are...??

BTW - you still haven't answered my question about the credibility of - or the 'plausible deniability' by someone who states they 'didn't know' about a $30,000 harassment settlement paid by their campaign.

Any ideas?

[crazytown]

99. Then I wish him luck.

I will 1000% believe in Marty's integrity if he resigns.

[ehrnst]

101. Would you feel the same about the integrity of the staff for a politician

who states they 'didn't know' about a $30,000 harassment settlement paid by their campaign.

[crazytown]

104. I would like to give you very detailed and comprehensive

directions about what to do about the "$30,000 harassment settlement", but I've said enough.

[ehrnst]

103. You haven't stated *why* he should resign. Because you think he's lying about

the independence of his newsroom?

[crazytown]

106. I have never said Mr. Baron is lying.

You're making my case for me.

[ehrnst]

107. You state that what he says can't true. That's accusing him of lying.

Even Bernie backpedaled when Marty spoke up.



It looks really bad to just say yes, you think Marty Baron is either lying or being cluelessly "directed" by Bezos, because it really does get right down to the point:

Your conspiracy theories' about Bezos' direction of WaPO to "harm progressives" vs what Marty Baron, celebrated fearless journalist says is independent journalism going on in his newsroom?

Who has more credibility - you or Baron?

[exboyfil]

109. It seems Fuller is the problem

WaPo did its job (rejected the op ed and actually broke this story). Fuller approached the Amazon PR department. Of course they would want a prominent economist to support their expansion. They are not obligated to report the relationship. Fuller is obligated to disclose it as an academic.

[yardwork]

113. Yes. In other DU threads on this incident Fuller is the focus.

[pnwmom]

115. The WA Post turned down the op-ed and then wrote a piece exposing the author

and the connection to Amazon.

This isn't a scandal.