Media Bias vs Amazon

[Barcey]

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 also wouldn't be considered "news" to write an article about the Earth not being flat. When it was news it absolutely would have been been correct to critically examine the facts from both sides before writing a news article about it.

[fjtorres]

The reason reputable news organizations put in place their verification and validation processes is because most people are not aware of their internalized biases and do not willingly challenge their internalized world view. Since they won't do it themselves, the organization must do it for them.

And if the organization fails to police their own standards it is the organization that suffers loss of credibility. Publish enough unverifiable rumor and innuendo and it becomes THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER. Or at least Slate.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

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.

So, you are saying that the Washington Post's stories about Watergate, provided by an anonymous source (Deep Throat), is proof that they were bias against Nixon? The use of anonymous sources is a long standing and wide spread tradition in news reporting. This is standard news reporting. Do you think that the news reporters should not report on a story because one side refuses to give their side?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

So, you are saying that the Washington Post's stories about Watergate, provided by an anonymous source (Deep Throat), is proof that they were bias against Nixon? The use of anonymous sources is a long standing and wide spread tradition in news reporting. This is standard news reporting. Do you think that the news reporters should not report on a story because one side refuses to give their side?

They had actual documentary evidence, no?
They followed the money, didn't they?

They weren't just publishing unverified allegations, they followed protocol they way it is supposed to be followed and they had actual evidence of law breaking.

Rumormongering isn't investigative reporting.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

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?

When I took a labor negotiations class I was told that publishing the terms of your offer was considered an unfair labor practice. I never got a decent answer why. (I was also told that you *never* start out with a fair offer. I never got an explanation I thought ethical to that one either.) Of course unfair labor negotiations are illegal-I doubt if unfair commercial negotiations are.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

When I took a labor negotiations class I was told that publishing the terms of your offer was considered an unfair labor practice. I never got a decent answer why.

Maybe because the union leadership (or management) might come under pressure by the rank and file, especially if they end up trading off benefits for salary or vice versa. No matter the terms they settle on there will always be disgruntled dissenters and it benefits nobody to throw wood on the fire.

Negotiations are an iterative process and mid-process snapshots tend to be misleading.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

-I doubt if unfair commercial negotiations are.

Actually, there is a recent example of a set of such that was judged illegal.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

They had actual documentary evidence, no?

Maybe once in a while. But most of their stories were not based on documents. And lots were based on a single anonymous source (Deep Throat/Mark Felt).

Originally Posted by fjtorres

They weren't just publishing unverified allegations, they followed protocol they way it is supposed to be followed and they had actual evidence of law breaking.

According to Post editor Barry Sussman, this was the protocol:

The two-source rule, usually referred to reverentially, is a smug way of suggesting that Washington Post editors were 100 percent sure of what we were printing. We did, of course, try to confirm and expand on leads, and that often meant going to two, three, four or even more sources. What responsible reporter or editor would want to run some unconfirmed assertion from a shaky source?

There was no two-source rule. There was only, as with most news organizations, an attempt to find reliable sources.

The descriptions of Amazon's hardball negotiating tactics are closer to verified than Deep Throat leaks were. The check is to see if actual prices and policies on the Amazon web site are consistent with what the anonymous source is saying.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The descriptions of Amazon's hardball negotiating tactics are closer to verified than Deep Throat leaks were. The check is to see if actual prices and policies on the Amazon web site are consistent with what the anonymous source is saying.

The prices on Amazon do not tell us what rights Amazon is demanding from Hachette.

It merely tells us what the consequences of Amazon not having a firm agreement for selling something is.

Theoretically Hachette could be demanding a million dollars per book sold, or Amazon could be demanding to buy books at a penny per book. But the prices on Amazon.com wouldn't tell us one way or the other.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Actually, there is a recent example of a set of such that was judged illegal.

Negotiations or results? I didn't find a case where the negotiations were judged illegal. Doesn't mean there isn't one, just that I couldn't find it.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Maybe because the union leadership (or management) might come under pressure by the rank and file, especially if they end up trading off benefits for salary or vice versa. No matter the terms they settle on there will always be disgruntled dissenters and it benefits nobody to throw wood on the fire.

Negotiations are an iterative process and mid-process snapshots tend to be misleading.

So? I still don't see what's unfair about it. Undesirable, maybe, but not unfair. And the undesirability is from your own side. I'll agree that publishing the other side's offer might be unfair-but the issue being described (in the class) was the negotiating team publishing what they offered to management, e.g. your suggestion of trading off benefits for salary. I can see why they might not want to publish their offer, but I can't see what's unfair about it if they do so.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

So? I still don't see what's unfair about it. Undesirable, maybe, but not unfair. And the undesirability is from your own side. I'll agree that publishing the other side's offer might be unfair-but the issue being described (in the class) was the negotiating team publishing what they offered to management, e.g. your suggestion of trading off benefits for salary. I can see why they might not want to publish their offer, but I can't see what's unfair about it if they do so.

"Unfair" in labor negotiations seems to be anything that bypasses or pressures the designated negotiators. They are supposed to be organization vs organization negotiations and not involve third parties, whether consumers or parts of the workforce.

Likewise, in business to business one purpose of NDAs is to keep external pressures (like from the workforce) from the process. How often do you see (for example) tire companies or battery companies leak "details" from their negotiations with Ford or Toyota to scare their employees and get positive press for themselves?

Two party negotiations don't get very far when a third party inserts itself in the middle or, worse, is drafted.

[SteveEisenberg]

Here is what happens to said bias when there is actually an Amazon side of the story to report on:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/amazo...tte-1404252554

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Here is what happens to said bias when there is actually an Amazon side of the story to report on

They bury it behind a paywall/login where it can't be easily seen by the masses?

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

They bury it behind a paywall/login where it can't be easily seen by the masses?

I clicked past the ad, and was given an "ARTICLE FREE PASS." Apparently, it's a YMMV situation.

Here is the same story picked up on an Australian newspaper site; I don't think think that will have a similar problem:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...d03b29faaf379e