I think this article seems like a good example of editorial independence. Even though both Amazon and the Washington Post are pretty much owned by the same person, the Washington Post has published a pretty negative article about Amazon.
Not to question their independence, but it seems to have a very positive spin for a negative article.
Amazon’s quest for more, cheaper products... Former executives say e-commerce giant, which last year spent $400 million fighting fraud and abuse is kind of saying well their trying really really hard, honest.
I suspect this has less to do with the Amazon relationship than the tendency to give similar weight to both sides of an issue. It's the lazy form of neutrality where you look at the mid point on an issue rather than aim for objective reality. Unfortunately, this causes a polarizing effect as extreme views move the midpoint.
I was actually surprised the WP even wrote this much. I read the title and saw it was a WP article and was immediately intrigued--not so much by the article contents but how the journalism would play out given the tight relationship.
To me, it almost feels like damage control and saving face with all the given FTC investigations on current market monopolies.
Seems more like a case of: "Look -- We have editorial independence. We published this negative article about Amazon with information that literally
everyone who uses Amazon already knows and takes into account."
