Media Bias vs Amazon

[fjtorres]

From David Gaughan:
http://davidgaughran.wordpress.com/2...as-and-amazon/

Statements from either side in the Amazon-Hachette dispute have been thin on the ground. Both companies are said to have signed NDAs – restricting formal comments while negotiations are ongoing – but Hachette has been leaking to reporters, and marshaling authors and industry figures in its defense, leading to an extremely one-sided depiction of events in the media.

Which is fine, it’s a pretty standard negotiation tactic, and a clever one if media conglomerates like Bertelsmann (part-owner of Penguin Random House), CBS (owner of Simon & Schuster), and NewsCorp (owner of HarperCollins and Harlequin) are rooting for your team.

What concerns me is that media outlets – even those not in the same corporate family as those publishers with a vested interest in the outcome – are taking the Hachette leaks as the complete and unvarnished truth.

Reporters are supposed to aim for some kind of objectivity (or be open about their subjectivity), but that’s not happening here at all. The only attempt at balance has been to ask Amazon for comment. Naturally, Amazon has refused as it’s currently restricted from commenting because of those NDAs.

This leaves a reporter with two choices: run the unbalanced piece as is, or attempt some critical analysis on their own. I’m not a reporter, but I can think of any number of scenarios where Amazon could be asking for an increased percentage of e-book sales, or wants to start charging for pre-orders, which doesn’t mean that the world is ending and Jeff Bezos eats babies.

Here are two plausible scenarios.

I haven’t seen any such critical analysis of these Hachette leaks because most of the media coverage of this dispute seems to start with the premise that Amazon is Evil and then works from there. I have no problem with Amazon being subjected to scrutiny. It should be subjected to scrutiny! What I have an issue with is large publishers not being subjected to any scrutiny whatsoever, even for the most abhorrent behavior.

This lack of scrutiny seems to have created an underlying assumption in media reports that publishers are trying to do the right thing, and Amazon is an amoral (or immoral) corporation which will happily burn down the book business if it means it can sell razor-blades more efficiently.

The links are worth following.
One quotes Gaughran himself:

SCENARIO A:

Hachette wants Agency. Amazon wants Wholesale. Hachette says OK to Wholesale, but wants some of those Agency percentages and terms (i.e. a 70/30 split, but Amazon to swallow all discounting). As this deal is even better for Hachette than Agency was (or Wholesale was before that), then Amazon says, OK, but then we have to charge you for all the stuff we give you for free: pre-order facilities, co-op, etc.


Hachette then leaks “Amazon is making us pay for all this stuff that was free like pre-orders. Whaaaaa!”

SCENARIO B:

Hachette and Amazon both agree that Agency is dead, but differ on the Wholesale split and how much Amazon can discount. Amazon thinks it should be more like print because it has to swallow all discounting under Wholesale, so it offers a (picking a random number) 60/40 split instead of 70/30. This will actually work out better for Hachette because it’s getting a guaranteed 60% of list, and Amazon will discount heavily (and shift more units). But Hachette doesn’t want Amazon to have power over pricing and discounting, so negotiations aren’t going anywhere.

Hachette then leaks “Amazon wants to massively cut royalty rates. Whaaaa!”

The comments that follow are a lively exchange involving Kensington CEO Zacharious and several authors.

One comment in particular is notable:

William Ockham says:
June 28, 2014 at 2:31 pm
I believe that the rest of the Big 5 know Hachette’s negotiating strategy because the Big 5 sent a joint letter to Judge Cote saying that they all (independently) intended to attempt to sign no-discount agency agreements with all of their ebook retail outlets. The CEO of Hachette recently confirmed that this was Hachette’s position in the Amazon negotiation. If that is the case, I would expect that B&N has already agreed to the terms that Hachette wants (B&N has publicly states that they liked the Apple deal). I checked B&N’s ebook prices for Hachette titles that could not be pre-ordered from Amazon and, lo and behold, the prices matched the old agency agreement perfectly (i.e. they met the price bands based on the print price).

If I, random pseudonymous internet troll, can figure this out, surely the bigwigs at the other Big 5 publishers can. Six months ago, they all said they were going to do this. Last week, Hachette told the press it was doing it. And there is independently verifiable public data that supports the idea that Hachette is doing it. I suppose they could have changed their minds, Nourry could be lying, and the B&N pricing is an unfortunate coincident. But I doubt it.

The reasons for the bias aren't clear (self-interest and the clannishness of the traditional publishing business, of which journalists are a branch, come to mind) but it is a matter to keep in mind the next time an "Amazon is evil" report pops up.

(I think the clockwork schedule calls for another one later today. )

[eschwartz]

Extremely interesting, although I don't see how this article is independent from the preexisting discussion...

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Extremely interesting, although I don't see how this article is independent from the preexisting discussion...

The topic is the *media* doing the reporting, not what they are reporting.
Put *them* under scrutiny.
What they choose to highlight, what they willfully ignore.

Half the linked post is about the pretense that Amazon breaks tax laws (which they don't appear to do) or that they are unique in using legal tax minimization strategies (which they definitely are not).

Other examples exist and would be fair game for discussion if anybody is interested. Like the recurring myth that amazon warehouse work is unduly harsh and that only Amazon relies on manual laborers in warehouses. Again, the question that cones to mind is why keep bringing up the same discredited bunk? Are they *that* disconnected from the real world?

[pwalker8]

The most obvious answer is that Amazon appears to be have yielded the media battlefield to Hachette. If Amazon doesn't put out any information, then there is nothing positive about Amazon that the media has to publish. No grand conspiracy is needed to explain things. Given that Bezos owns the Washington Post, it's somewhat disingenuous to point to someone else owning both media and publishing resources.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Given that Bezos owns the Washington Post, it's somewhat disingenuous to point to someone else owning both media and publishing resources.

Bezos is pointedly not involved in WP editorial.
He expressly told the staff to attack Amazon if that is their inclination.

http://www.cjr.org/cover_story/washi...s.php?page=all

He encouraged them to cover both Amazon and himself aggressively, explaining that he was comfortable simultaneously running a secretive company and owning a newspaper, because he believed that “powerful minds can contain powerful inconsistencies.” He said the Post’s customers should be readers, not advertisers...

Amazon has "ceded" the media campaign to Hachette because:

1- They are under NDA and their staff isn't about to violate it over what is to Amazon a minor negotiation.

2- Because nothing Amazon could say would sway the media camp. That is how bias works, after all.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Given that Bezos owns the Washington Post, it's somewhat disingenuous to point to someone else owning both media and publishing resources.

Except when you want to point out that one, so far, is not using that situation to their advantage in order to sway public opinion.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The most obvious answer is that Amazon appears to be have yielded the media battlefield to Hachette. If Amazon doesn't put out any information, then there is nothing positive about Amazon that the media has to publish. No grand conspiracy is needed to explain things. Given that Bezos owns the Washington Post, it's somewhat disingenuous to point to someone else owning both media and publishing resources.

As an honorable man, NDA doesn't mean disclose on the sly. I would release nothing. Even were that turn out to be detrimental to my interests.

I can see compelling reasons for why the media might be biased. Your proposed replacement scenario seems no more favorable toward the media. Extortion. "Spin us a story, Amazon, or we'll crucify you." Or abject laziness. "Spin us a story, Amazon, because we're too lazy to think and investigate for ourselves." Perhaps all three of those are combined to varying degrees.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

As an honorable man, NDA doesn't mean disclose on the sly.

On the dubious smoke=fire hypothesis, I guess that, by the bare preponderance of the evidence, a non-disclosure agreement exists. But who does it apply to, and what are its terms? Without knowing this, I hardly could say that someone is violating it.

It may be that the publishers have responsibility to explain sales trends to some of their more popular authors and agents who insisted on non-standard contracts. If so, and they are the leakers, these are people who never signed an NDA.

As for honor, both the publishers, and Amazon (as a publisher), should in the business of disseminating information, not hiding it.

There are some secrets that I think should be kept secret, like, say, the name of an spy who would be killed if exposed, or a how-to on chemical weapons, or a list of employees seeing a psychiatrist. But the details of a commercial financial negotiation hardly rise to that level. I can't imagine what public benefit occurs when, say, News Corp. (owns HarperCollins) knows legitimate business news and keeps it secret. Maybe such openness would means fewer mergers and acquisitions, but since they often cost jobs, so what?

Rather than media bias or one party being more honorable than the other one, here is the most plausible reason why the press seems to be publishing more of the Hachette story than the Amazon story:

http://jimromenesko.com/2013/08/18/i...s-easiest-job/

Being secretive should not be seen as a plus.

[TimW]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

As an honorable man, NDA doesn't mean disclose on the sly. I would release nothing. Even were that turn out to be detrimental to my interests.

I can see compelling reasons for why the media might be biased. Your proposed replacement scenario seems no more favorable toward the media. Extortion. "Spin us a story, Amazon, or we'll crucify you." Or abject laziness. "Spin us a story, Amazon, because we're too lazy to think and investigate for ourselves." Perhaps all three of those are combined to varying degrees.

There was an interesting assertion made by http://thecockeyedpessimist.blogspot.com on June 3rd in a followup piece to the one linked by Amazon:

What I do know is that the Department of Justice ordered that discussions between Hachette and Amazon be held in private, without commentary from either side.

Since I've not seen this statement made elsewhere, I can't guarantee its validity. I can imagine the DoJ making such an order to lessen the chance of collusion among the former(possibly current) colluders. Violating an order from the DoJ would certainly bring a greater likelihood of reprisal than an NDA violation.

Edit:
Actually, the rest of the paragraph from the quote is also relevant:

Still, in one of Streitfeld’s [of the New York Times] postings his final line was “An Amazon spokesman declined to comment.” He didn’t refer to the DOJ injunction, which also applies to Hachette, leaving the impression that Amazon alone is intentionally hiding something dishonorable.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

As an honorable man, NDA doesn't mean disclose on the sly. I would release nothing. Even were that turn out to be detrimental to my interests.

I can see compelling reasons for why the media might be biased. Your proposed replacement scenario seems no more favorable toward the media. Extortion. "Spin us a story, Amazon, or we'll crucify you." Or abject laziness. "Spin us a story, Amazon, because we're too lazy to think and investigate for ourselves." Perhaps all three of those are combined to varying degrees.

Or maybe if you aren't willing to tell your side of the story, then don't be surprised if your side of the story doesn't get told. Amazon is a bit like Walmart, they are going to do what they are going to do and they don't really seem to care what people think. Now, it could be that Amazon is pure as the driven snow, but it's equally possible that Amazon's side of the story isn't all that attractive. It's left up to the imagination of the reader and if the other side is filling in the gaps in the imagination.

My take is that Amazon is simply playing extreme hardball like they normally do. I have no problem with that. No one is putting a gun to anyone's head and making them do business with Amazon.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

As for honor, for both the publishers, and Amazon (as a publisher), should in the business of disseminating information, not hiding it.

There are some secrets that I think should be kept secret, like, say, the name of an spy who would be killed if exposed, or a how-to on chemical weapons, or a list of employees seeing a psychiatrist. But the details of a commercial financial negotiation hardly rise to that level. I can't imagine what public benefit occurs when, say, News Corp. (owns HarperCollins) knows legitimate business news and keeps it secret. Maybe such openness would means fewer mergers and acquisitions, but since they often cost jobs, so what?

Rather than media bias or one party being more honorable than the other one, here is the most plausible reason why the press seems to be publishing more of the Hachette story than the Amazon story:

http://jimromenesko.com/2013/08/18/i...s-easiest-job/

Being secretive should not be seen as a plus.

I was assuming the "honor" spoken of is "fulfilling my agreements" "not breaking contract" and specifically "not violating the terms of the NDA we agreed to abide by".

Honor means so many different things to different people; one thing I should hope we all agreed on is the importance of keeping your word.

[tompe]

It can also be that one view is the correct one. And it is not a bias if reporting is reporting that correct view.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tompe

It can also be that one view is the correct one. And it is not a bias if reporting is reporting that correct view.

Of course it is!
That is exactly what bias is: "I know this to be a holy truth so I need not offer an alternative view or explanation." Which turns news reports into propaganda.

Bias is about how the "news" are presented.
Op-ed pieces don't need to meet journalistic standards of comprehensiveness and fairness because by definition they are expected to be biased but news reporting is *supposed* to be factual. (Yeah, right! )

More realistically: news reporting strives to minimize reporter bias to earn credibility for the report and the institution and *not* make the critical reader wonder what's in it for the reporter or his masters or worse yet, *understand* what their vested interest is.

Short-circuiting the process and presenting one-sided, slanted reports--barely disguised op-ed pieces--undercuts the credibility of the reporter and the organization. Now, reporters and editors can be (and are) ditched but damage to the organization is never fully repaired.

Which is why Bezos explicitly told the staff of the Washington Post *not* to slant reports to protect Amazon, as quoted above. He spent a half billion of his personal funds to prop up the paper, not to turn it into an extension of Amazon PR. (For that he would have used corporate funds.)

Credibility, once lost, never really comes back. Once exposed for bias or plagiarism or making up stories, the organization will forever be under a shadow, long after the great and holy cause of the day is gone and forgotten.

[tompe]

Yes, it should be factual. And having good evidence and reporting what is factual according to the evidence is not a bias. It is not a bias reporting that the earth is not flat.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by tompe

Yes, it should be factual. And having good evidence and reporting what is factual according to the evidence is not a bias. It is not a bias reporting that the earth is not flat.

It is bias reporting when all you publish is an unverified and *unverifiable* assertion. Anonymous sources? People involved in negotiations they are legally committed to keep confidential whispering from behind closed doors?
Are those verifiable facts? NOT!

Those are closer to the flat-earther position than to any factual geographical reporting.
Like flat earthers, they are not reporting veriable facts, just *uncritically* echoing what somebody else is telling them. Taking as literal gospel what they're fed because it fits their world view and if they challenge it they might end up finding fault with their religion.

Textbook definition of bias.