[rfrank]

Activism. I'm curious why downvoters think their acquisitions aren't a form of activism. For instance, their coverage of an Amazon monopoly is very sparse, even given the recent Democratic economic policy statements which mention monopolies frequently. Billionaires wanting to control the press isn't exactly a shocking idea. Is buying a newspaper and controlling their output more or less offensive than Theil's funding the Gawker suit?

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/11/at-th...

2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...

3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/amazon-isnt-technica...

4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/30/amazo...

5. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/is-amazon-getting-to...

[nl]

I'm a little unclear as to the logic of your argument. If you are implying that Bezos is controlling WP's output then wouldn't he have stopped some of the stories you posted? I don't remember when he took control, but I'd note at least two of those stories are from this year.

There are other articles critical of Amazon from WP too, eg: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/birkenstock-...

Maybe you think there should be more, but it's not like other news sources have huge numbers more.

(Also, your argument that Amazon is a monopoly isn't one that is widely made. I can't think of a single category where Amazon doesn't have meaningful competition. Just being successful doesn't make a company a monopoly.)

[lawnchair_larry]

There is no question that this is the reason. Many billionares have sought to control the public narrative by buying media outlets. It's easily the most effective way to ensure that their personal views are served up to the public. Same reason that Putin started RT.

[pvg]

How do any of these links demonstrate that Bezos is controlling the Washington Post's output?

[rfrank]

To me, saying "Bezos doesn't influence Wapo's output" is like saying, "Oculus will remain an independent entity inside Facebook." Not something I'm inclined to believe. Why should one believe that the billionaire (and new richest man in the world) at the helm of a major monopoly isn't influencing WaPo's content?

[throwaway91111]

Seems like you have an axe to grind. I don't have a reason to be this suspicious about amazon. What's your reason?

[rfrank]

Seems like you have a reason to be defensive, throwaway account. I'm suspicious of any billionaire who buys a newspaper, for reasons I've been arguing in this thread - the very real potential for bad behavior.