{"id":352204,"date":"2018-03-15T02:54:37","date_gmt":"2018-03-15T01:54:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/wapo-fails-to-disclose-ownership-in-puff-piece-for-bezos\/"},"modified":"2018-03-15T02:54:37","modified_gmt":"2018-03-15T01:54:37","slug":"wapo-fails-to-disclose-ownership-in-puff-piece-for-bezos","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/newswire\/wapo-fails-to-disclose-ownership-in-puff-piece-for-bezos\/","title":{"rendered":"WaPo Fails to Disclose Ownership in Puff Piece for Bezos"},"content":{"rendered":"

The <\/span>Washington Post<\/b>, like a lot of corporate media (<\/span>CounterSpin<\/b>, <\/span>10\/20\/17<\/span><\/a>), has spent a great deal of time hyping the bidding process for <\/span>Amazon<\/b> HQ2, <\/span>Amazon<\/b>\u2019s planned second headquarters that hundreds of localities are allegedly competing for. The thing that distinguishes the <\/span>Post<\/b>\u2019s coverage is that it and <\/span>Amazon<\/b> share an owner\u2014world\u2019s richest billionaire Jeff Bezos. So it\u2019s notable\u2014and uniquely sketchy\u2014when the paper not only uses prime media real estate to uncritically hype <\/span>Amazon<\/b>\u2019s primary corporate sales pitch, but does so while failing to disclose that <\/span>Amazon<\/b>\u2019s CEO is the paper\u2019s boss. <\/span><\/p>\n

The <\/span>Post<\/b>\u2019s Darla Cameron and Jonathan O’Connell (<\/span>3\/7\/18<\/span><\/a>) wrote a press release\u2013like breakdown of the \u201crace to land <\/span>Amazon.com<\/b>\u2019s second headquarters and its 50,000 jobs,\u201d titled \u201cThe <\/span>Amazon<\/b> Finalists Are Already Building Tech Economies. Which Are the Best?\u201d The 1,100-word, graphics-heavy article didn\u2019t include a single mention that <\/span>Amazon<\/b>\u2019s boss and richest person in the world (current net worth: $130 billion) is also Cameron and O\u2019Connell\u2019s employer. <\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Darla Cameron and Jonathan O’Connell’s report on Amazon’s city hunt for the Jeff Bezos\u2013owned Washington Post<\/strong> (3\/7\/18<\/a>).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

While the <\/span>Washington Post<\/b>\u2018s coverage of its corporate big brother usually throws in a perfunctory disclosure midway through its 95 percent softball coverage (<\/span>FAIR.org<\/b>, <\/span>7\/28\/17<\/span><\/a>), this time editors didn\u2019t bother. <\/span><\/p>\n

Like last year, when FAIR (<\/span>10\/25\/17)<\/span><\/a> noted that O\u2019Connell was simply cutting and pasting revenue figures for HQ2 from an <\/span>Amazon<\/b> press release, O\u2019Connell begins the piece citing a \u201c50,000 jobs\u201d figure based entirely on the same <\/span>Amazon<\/b> press release<\/span><\/a>. Like the nebulous \u201c$30 billion to the local economy\u201d and the \u201c$55 billion in \u201cspinoff benefits\u201d <\/span>Amazon<\/b> HQ2 is supposed to contribute, these 50,000 jobs are a major selling point <\/span>Amazon<\/b>\u2019s marketing department is throwing out, and O\u2019Connell is uncritically reporting as fact. One can only guess where <\/span>Amazon<\/b> got these Sexy Large numbers, since neither it nor O\u2019Connell bothers to cite a source. The job totals and \u201ceconomic impact\u201d of HQ2 has been repeated so many times that they are truth by sheer repetition. They just <\/span>are. <\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

Even assuming these \u201c50,000 jobs\u201d are real, the studies that suggest <\/span>Amazon<\/b> provides no net employment (job gains are <\/span>offset with other job losses<\/span><\/a>) are never addressed. These \u201c50,000 jobs\u201d are presented as a net win; any negative effects are simply ignored. <\/span><\/p>\n

O\u2019Connell\u2019s other recent hard-hitting coverage of <\/span>Amazon<\/b>\u2019s PR effort to extract as <\/span>much value as possible from local governments<\/span><\/a> includes: <\/span><\/p>\n