The media world has been obsessed with Amazon’s very public rebuttal of the New York Times investigative piece/hatchet job (delete as appropriate). The actual argument is less exciting than what it tells us about the media industry in 2015
1. The Washington Post isn’t yet a mouthpiece for Jeff Bezos
In years gone by a corporation wanting to rebut a story so publicly would have looked to publish an Op-Ed in a rival newspaper. Bezos’ ownership of the Washington Post would have made this a natural fit.
That it wasn't used in this way could be down to a few different factors.
- Bezos isn’t willing to compromise the paper’s integrity
- He was, but the Washington Post refused to play ball
- Bezos considered the Post, but chose to go for a neutral forum to avoid turning this into a media spat.
Regardless of which factors were in play, it’s heartening that the Post wasn’t dragged into what would have been an ugly row.
2. Medium has come of age
Why Medium? Why not a press release hosted on Amazon, a post on Facebook, an advert plastered across the media or an Op-Ed in any paper?
Probably because of it’s simplicity. On Medium, the words are the only things that matter. Any other format comes with baggage. Medium right now is clean and new enough to keep the focus firmly where Amazon wanted it — on the rebuttal of the story.
The NYT’s choice to use it is even more interesting. It would have been easy for the paper to publish a rebuttal on their own website and bask in their own credibility. By choosing to fight on the battleground of Amazon’s choice, the NYT acknowledged it’s not all powerful.
This speaks to a wider trend in digital publishing. Media organisations websites aren’t as important as they used to be. Instead — being where stories are occurring and where the audience wants to engage with you is the trend that’s defining the new approach to media.
3. Media ethics may be back in the news
Sourcing and fact checking of stories is a debate that will never die. You’re told as a trainee journalist to always have two sources — the dozens that the New York Times have suggest there’s meat to their story.
But, Amazon’s claim that a key source for the Times was fired for Fraud immediately raises questions about the veracity of every other source. One rotten apple can spoil an otherwise legitimate barrel.
Right now this is mostly a process story — it’s being tweeted about and covered by media journalists and columnists. What Amazon are hoping is this debate crosses over to the front pages and onto broadcast media — that’s the best way of reaching the broader public.
Alternatively, they may not care about reaching the general public at all. This could be an initial warning show of a new more belligerant approach to spin and PR. For media commentators everywhere this promises to be a fascinating battle.
