Among many other things that are seeing titanic shifts right now is the media landscape. Wired has been doing some excellent reporting on a lot of recent events while you have storied outfits like the Washington Post muzzled by their owner.
> while you have storied outfits like the Washington Post muzzled by their owner
I guess it shouldn't still be surprising that a joint-stock company with diverse owners outperforms a closely-held company again, but here I am, genuinely surprised. (I previously thought a rich patron could stand up to power. But Kay Graham was special. Bezos is another coward.)
Every major journalism boss until recently shared and stood up for the same values (except Murdoch): CBS, NBC, ABC, NYT, Wash Post, CNN, Gannett, your major local newspaper probably, ...
We need to stop thinking of it as special and go back to making it a norm. Then publications who do what the WP is doing will suffer consequences. People have become quickly accustomed to corruption.
A rich patron can stand up to power when power plays by the rules.
This regime does not. It is above the law. If you're interested in the endgame of this sort of thing, just look at Russia. No shortage of rich people there, but not a lot of them interested in pushing back.
> A rich patron can stand up to power when power plays by the rules
A rich person has power. That means getting to set your own rules, to an extent. Bezos could have challenged Trump, or at least drawn a line in the sand around press freedom and democratic institutions. He didn't. None of them did. I don't know to whom we rotate power, but it's clear that there needs to be a dilution of it from Silicon Valley.
No, we're not. I was out at a protest this evening with ordinary Americans who have far less wealth and power than Bezos, and they're out there doing what they can. There's a lot he could still be doing.
What's the worst that can happen to him? He flees the country and never has to work a day for the rest of his life that he could live in luxury?
