This was interesting:
Quote:
|
Mr. Marcus, now the executive editor of Harper’s Magazine, said it all made sense, kind of: “Bezos is fascinated by broken business models. And whatever else you think of newspapers, the business model is broken.”
|
The rest? Not so much.
Two recycled anecdotes and a lot of innuendo about *possible* conflicts of interest.
This, from an outfit that has a *clear* conflict of interest in reporting on its number one competitor.
If Bezos were to actually involve himself in the running of the WP--which he has said he won't be doing--and were to succeed in evolving a new, successful business model for big city newspapers he would then be increasing the competitive pressure on the rest of the business and they might, lemming-like, choose to follow suit. Especially if the new model applies the same oh-so-offensive criteria applied to the professional reviewers at Amazon; like, if nobody cares enough about what you write to actually read it, then maybe you shouldn't be spending money putting it out. (Which brand of cost-cutting, btw, the NYT and Chicago Sun Times are already engaging in, without Bezos' example.)
A lot of maybe's and if's and very few meaningful facts in this one.
Just a lot of undefined foreboding and hand-wringing from the staff of the "paper of record": the number two paper in the land just cozied up to a (presumed) sugar daddy with deep pockets at a time the fading number one is selling off pieces of its own empire at heavy discount. "If things are bad now, how much worse will they be when Bezos starts out-of-the-box'ing *us*?!! Oh, woe is us!!!" "Woe is the WP staff that will have to buy their own aspirin!"
Not impressed.
I've seen better at the NYT... but not this century.