You're looking at the site for the Washington Post Company, not the Washington Post newspaper (confusing, I know).
EDIT: Nope, just the newspapers. See the press release -
The transaction covers The Washington Post and other publishing businesses, including the Express newspaper, The Gazette Newspapers, Southern Maryland Newspapers, Fairfax County Times, El Tiempo Latino and Greater Washington Publishing.
Slate magazine, TheRoot.com and Foreign Policy are not part of the transaction and will remain with The Washington Post Company, as will the WaPo Labs and SocialCode businesses, the Company’s interest in Classified Ventures and certain real estate assets, including the headquarters building in downtown Washington, DC. The Washington Post Company, which also owns Kaplan, Post–Newsweek Stations and Cable ONE, will be changing its name in connection with the transaction; no new name has yet been announced
No slate.com, though there are many other assets. Check out page 4:
>The deal does not include the company’s headquarters on 15th St. NW in Washington (the building has been for sale since February), or Foreign Policy magazine, Slate.com, the Root.com, the WaPo Labs digital-development operation or Post-owned land along the Potomac River in Alexandria.
>“There would be change with or without new ownership. But the key thing I hope people will take away from this is that the values of The Post do not need changing. The duty of the paper is to the readers, not the owners.”
The Washington Post is an important institution for the USA, and comments like this make it seem that Bezos will be a good steward. I hope, and am fairly certain, that this is a good thing for everyone involved.
As far as I know, he has expertise in launching innovative technology at scale - something the Post desperately needs to stay afloat. Removing the politics of the business and replacing with innovation would do the whole country some good.
Interestingly, the Post's existing digital experimentation shop, WaPo Labs (http://www.wapolabs.com/), is specifically mentioned in the Post's official statement as one of the assets that is not included in the sale.
Update: Slashdot founder Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda (who was hired by WaPo Labs last year) confirms on Google+ that he and his team aren't going with the paper: https://plus.google.com/+CmdrTaco/posts/1V2ZpbjcgbB
Most business owners try to maximize profit. Bezos is clearly not doing this for the money, so the paper will be less beholden to corporate/revenue interests and more beholden to Bezos himself. How that works out depends on how close to Plato's "benevolent dictator" Bezos ends up being; the statement says that he's planning to try.
I agree. I'm afraid if we want to keep lots of high quality journalism around, some of it is going to have to be subsidized in one way or another. Rich patrons are one way of doing that.
If Bezos integrates this with Amazon, how could this change the newspaper with respect to the Kindle and e-publishing? Could this change daily print media?
The article says that Amazon will have no role in the purchase. Time will tell if that's true, though. I'd love to have my Kindle be both my book library and an automatically updated copy of the newspaper every morning. Having tried Kindle newspapers, I've found them to be quite lacking (and pretty expensive). Some Kindle newspapers are even missing entire sections of the print version!
In this context, I think "Amazon will have no role in the purchase" just means that Bezos is buying WaPo with his own money, and he will own it personally. I don't think it precludes him from making deals between the two companies.
At what level is this the case? If WaPo do a special optimization for Kindle? If they decide to order some laptops from AMZ? If AMZ headquarters installs a vending machine for the WaPo?
If Bezos, in his capacity as owner, directs them to do something.
Think of it this way: Jeff Bezos is a majority shareholder (at least according to reports, he is not taking on the chairman/CEO role).
Normally, the only control a majority shareholder has is to elect/remove the board.
If he attempts to effect other control, particularly by suggestion to the board/whatever, they need to make disinterested decisions.
So the short answer to your question is "always". Every board decision needs to be made by disinterested directors after full disclosure of the facts by any interested directors. Anything else would be a self-dealing transaction, and would possibly subject them to personal liability.
He's not taking majority ownership, he's taking sole ownership. He can be the one and only director, and is entitled to make decisions in the interests of the sole shareholder (himself). The rules are different when there are no minority shareholders to protect.
> "Bezos himself will buy the news organization and become its sole owner when the sale is completed, probably within 60 days."
He's buying subsidiaries of The Washington Post Company, which are not publicly traded. He is not purchasing The Washington Post Company, which is a publicly traded company, and has numerous non-newspaper assets Bezos is not acquiring. This is explained in pretty much every article on the subject, including the one we're posting these comments about, and has likewise been explained in other HN comments about this purchase.
This is also explained in The Washington Post Company's August 5th 8K filing with the SEC[1], which states unambiguously "the Purchaser will acquire all the issued and outstanding equity securities of [...]" and "The Purchaser will not acquire the Company’s interests in [...]".:
> On August 5, 2013, The Washington Post Company (the “Company”), entered into a binding letter agreement (the “Letter Agreement”) with Nash Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Purchaser”), and Explore Holdings LLC, a Washington limited liability company, as guarantor (the “Guarantor”), pursuant to which the Purchaser will acquire all the issued and outstanding equity securities of each of WP Company LLC, Express Publications Company, LLC, El Tiempo Latino, LLC, Robinson Terminal Warehouse, LLC, Greater Washington Publishing, LLC and Post-Newsweek Media, LLC (the “Publishing Subsidiaries”). The Publishing Subsidiaries together conduct most of the Company’s publishing businesses, including publishing The Washington Post, Express, The Gazette Newspapers, Southern Maryland Newspapers, Fairfax County Times and El Tiempo Latino and related websites, and operating Washington Post Live and Washington Post News Media Services and the Company’s commercial printing and distribution business and paper handling and storage business (collectively, the “Publishing Business”). The Purchaser will also acquire all other assets of the Company primarily related to the Publishing Business, including all of the Company’s rights in the name “The Washington Post”. The Company will change its corporate name within 60 days following the closing. The Purchaser will not acquire the Company’s interests in Classified Ventures, LLC, The Slate Group LLC, The FP Group, WaPo Labs and certain excluded real estate. Liabilities and assets under the Retirement Plan for The Washington Post Companies relating to the active employees of the Publishing Business will be transferred to the Purchaser.
"WP Company LLC", in particular, is the newspaper The Washington Post. See e.g. [2] which says "WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post.".
You can further consult The Washington Post Company's press release[3], which again states:
> Slate magazine, TheRoot.com and Foreign Policy are not part of the transaction and will remain with The Washington Post Company, as will the WaPo Labs and SocialCode businesses, the Company’s interest in Classified Ventures and certain real estate assets, including the headquarters building in downtown Washington, DC. The Washington Post Company, which also owns Kaplan, Post–Newsweek Stations and Cable ONE, will be changing its name in connection with the transaction; no new name has yet been announced.
I have never really been drawn to the Kindle for books (except the large-but-expensive model) but it would be ideal for daily news - in fact the screen seems to pick up where newsprint left off. I'm old-fashioned enough to even like the idea of having everything in black & white.
I'm not sure if this is good news. Doesn't this portend further monopolistic control over publishing and distribution? Amazon isn't known to fairly and openly distribute its content.
Amazon is moving towards funding their own TV shows, so it wouldn't be too surprising if Bezos was trying to generate his own content in other mediums as well.
Which simply means that he now has a content asset that he can license back to Amazon for distribution if he wishes. It's seems like it could be a lot like a business owner buying a building under a different company name only to lease it back to their primary business for a variety of benefits.
Murdoch is easily one of the most evil people to have ever walked on this planet. He enabled the Iraq war which has seen a mass loss of life for no real gain. He supported the widespread hacking of UK citizens. His meddling in politics and elections in the UK, US and Australia is unprecedented, brazen and has unquestionably undermined democracy.
Even now he flew over an Editor from the NY Post to Australia to influence the election here who already is shocking the political scene here.
Absurd to blame Murdoch for a war that had majorities of Congress vote for it. If any media outlet deserves some blame for Iraq, it was the New York Times. In any event, the Iraq war has saved lives compared to the sanctions regime that it replaced.
It is not absurd to blame Murdoch for his role in the war.
He didn't take a negative or neutral position. He actively campaigned for it across three continents (UK, US and Australia). And it has been widely reported that Blair was heavily influenced by Murdoch.
The NYT didn't officially take a position. It just failed in its duty to check the facts.
Murdoch was a major force in getting Gough Whitlam (of the Australian Labor Party) elected which was probably his first major step into the political scene. He was also a major force behind the election of Malcolm Frazer (of the Australian Liberal Party) a few years later. Just because he elects leaders from the left or the right does not mean he isn't influencing them. Murdoch has long had a hand in picking the government of the day. Why he picks one leader or another is less of an issue than the fact he is picking leaders.
Are you in Australia right now ? There is a world of difference between what News Corp, Faifax, AFR etc papers have done in the past and what happened with the Daily Telegraph yesterday.
Why Murdoch wants Rudd to lose the coming federal election is not merely political, it is commercial. News Corp hates the government's National Broadband Network (NBN). The company has formed a view that it poses a threat to the business model of by far its most important asset in Australia, the Foxtel cable TV monopoly it jointly owns with Telstra.
The Washington Post seems to have an incredible reputation (especially if they really did break the Pentagon Papers and others) and be a fun purchase if you have f-you money.
The Huffington Post does not have pension obligations, and it doesn't pay its reporters six-figure salaries and benefits. (Well, not most of them, anyway.)
Seems like he thought that the price was right for a publication with such a strong legacy, even if he doesn't have a grand plan for the immediate future. This sale was only offered to a very narrow pool of buyers, so I think that it was a very prudent purchase. He is friends with the previous ownership and undoubtedly felt that if he can preserve the publication in some shape or form, there is nothing but upside given the "drop in the bucket" price.
I'm still amazed that as reputed institute as Washington Post where shapes opinion of millions of people could be bought out at 1/4th of the price of Instagram.
They're completely different businesses. Huffington Post is a cross between a content farm, a bad women's magazine, and Daily Kos. The Washington Post is a newspaper.
I suspect it's a power grab for influence in the long-term. Big media shapes the discourse, debate, and policy of the country. He can be a much more effective broker of business and societal matters now that he manages "the truth."
If that was the goal he would have had Amazon buy the company. Instead it's a "personal" acquisition.
It's possible this is an elaborate ruse to fool the Graham family into selling their crown jewel (reputationally, at least. The Kaplan test preparation unit is the tail that now wags the profit dog at Washington Post, Inc., as I understand it.). However, that seems like a stretch. I'd much rather have a paper run as a hobby by a man (even a profoundly eccentric one) who can afford it than a board desperate to maximize quarterly earnings.
It could be that it was a personal acquisition because Amazon isn't making a much of a net profit, and buying the Washington Post would cause Amazon stock prices to tank.
I think that's an appropriate analysis; however, it would hold true for most people able to buy a newspaper and I have no specific fears heading in. That's pretty good given the current political climate.
Is there anyone rich enough to buy a newspaper who wouldn't have a conflict of interest? Is there any human alive who wouldn't have a conflict of interest?
I think because it is incredibly dangerous to have people who don't understand a subject passing legislation/informing public opinion on that subject.
At the very least it is a situation ripe for misunderstandings leading to bad end results and at the worst is fertile ground for lobbyists and special interests.
> The man can do what he wants but the public probably shouldn't applaud this.
I kinda disagree with you on this one. Not only will something like the Kindle and Kindle apps benefit, but this is a huge win since the old style of media wasn't capable of figuring out how to stay in business. The reason why the Kindle, iTunes, Google Play or any other store is succeeding while the rest are failing is because all the rest didn't have monetized digital distribution mechanisms. All media was given out for free and now you can't stay in business if you decide to pay-wall your website. They weren't smart about it. However all other walled gardens are thriving because they are monetized from the get go and an effort has been made to make them simple to use.
The public is the winner here, and the Kindle. The only loser is probably B&N.
The public loses when a news source losses all credibility for being unbiased. We need more news organizations that are doing real hard hitting journalism and fewer media mouth pieces...long term this is not a good thing...
You have a media mouthpiece owned by Bezos. Don't complain too much. My choices for national media mouthpieces are owned by: Rupert Murdoch, Gina Rhinehart, The Australian Government.
Those 3 names feature pretty prominently in TV ownership. The two dedicated news services are Murdoch (sky) and govt (abc24). Rinehart also has a decent chunk of 10.
So I guess there's Kerry Stokes. And whoever is looking after 9 these days.
All media was given out for free and now you can't stay in business if you decide to pay-wall your website. They weren't smart about it.
I submit that there was no possible set of actions the newspapers could have taken, including worldwide oligopolistic collusion, which could have produced a market in which any but a few "luxury" brands can charge media consumers directly. The basic service of telling us what happened over the last 12 hours is one that wants to be free.
Two successful approaches would have been freemium with a paid tier or multiple micro payments through an app just like today's in-app purchases. However no good mechanism was used and news outlets used the web as an advertising venue for themselves and as an advertising source of revenue. Both didn't have much ROI.
It would be naive to think that the paper will produce an article that disparages Amazon's labor and business practices, now that it is owned by the same man that is the CEO of Amazon. I'm not sure what his stake is in the company, but I assume it's significant to raise this issue.
Given the traditional separation of editorial and business in newspapers, I wouldn't be shocked if the Post ran an Amazon hit piece just to test the boundaries.
The same could be said about any prospective owner of a newspaper. Is Bezos owning media interests really worse than anybody else? I'd argue that a new entrant into news media is much preferable to further consolidation of media among the currently small set of big players in the industry.
OK, the only ideal owners of a newspaper would be anthropologists from another planet who cared nothing about Earth affairs and only documented what they saw. But even failing that, you seem to see better journalism from competing groups of intellectually honest yet openly biased sources than from supposedly unbiased sources. With biased sources, you can just read every side and form your own opinion. With supposedly unbiased sources, you'd have to do the same thing anyway but it's much harder to figure out what their biases were to begin with.
And sure, people can be intellectually lazy and only read sources that they agree with, but the fallacy of unbiased journalism is that a handful of media outlets will end up providing that anyway, just with the illusion of impartiality.
We happen to be a thoughtful community and a decent newsreader without (a lot of) hierarchy. If it migrates elsewhere, I will as well. I find many of Graham's old essays amusing in the abstract sense (they're Austrian Economics rehashed in the language of computer science), but question his intentions.
I'm kind of surprised, but this seems like the best possible direction for them. Sort of like Chris Hughes buying The New Republic, Bezos has the cash to give the Post breathing room to find a direction that will be profitable. And, ostensibly, he won't want to turn it into Buzzfeed.
"give the Post breathing room to find a direction that will be profitable"
Could be but I don't think that's the case. I think there is something else going on here either vanity or some underlying access or asset that provides much greater value to Bezos that has not much to do with Amazon either.
I mean if you have that much money you can afford to buy and have it lose money for years just for other valuable benefits and access. WP is a mouthpiece he could swing elections (influence is way beyond their circulation).
Announced after market close. Expecting NYT stock to rise quite a bit.
I was surprised when Jack Welsh (x GE) wanted to buy the Boston Globe (he backed out). He realized the the shine was one of the past. It's interesting that Bezos sees value here but I think the value is in the same sense taking a small part of his billions and buying something that is a legend. (After all rich people buy art and other trinkets because they can so why not a newspaper?).
I agree. Bezos is almost 50 years old now. What's the point of having $28 billion in assets if you can't do some interesting things with it (like Bezos Expeditions, the millennium clock, or retrieve the apollo engines).
I don't see anyone majorly naysaying this move, but in case anyone does, remember that Jeff is smart. Very, very smart. I've heard him referenced to as "a hyper-intelligent alien who has only a tangential in human affairs" before. AMZN represents a bit of this.
My money's on Jeff - he's got something up his sleeve here.
Just because you don't find businessmen to be worthy of looking up, doesn't mean somebody else doesn't. There's plenty of room on HN for differing beliefs, even if you find it nauseating.
I regard earning money in a productive fashion and without the use of force to be one of the greatest things a person can do. That's my belief, and I don't force anybody else to agree with me.
Just because he's smart doesn't mean he's benevolent, right? I would never argue that he's stupid but I'd be curious to know if anyone has any insight into the extent to which he's likely to be making this purchase in order to gain influence of some kind.
Clearly with a $28 billion net worth (#15 in the world), and the head of Amazon.com, he is not lacking in influence. He already has that in spades. There isn't anybody in Washington that won't take his call.
There are radically cheaper ways to have influence. He could set up a PAC, seed it with $50 million, and directly buy whatever influence he needs.
The thing about buying one of the few really national papers and slanting its coverage: your competitors will have a field day and it won't be long before your paper is a joke that nobody takes seriously.
I don't think he has much room to abuse this for influence.
This is, in my opinion, an overly straightforward conception of influence. I'm not saying Bezos would want to buy the Washington Post in order to effect positive coverage of Amazon.
Calling people and starting a PAC with a transparent agenda is not nearly as powerful as controlling one of the few trusted, prestigious political news outlets left. You can influence operations without directly interfering in the newsroom, and you can do so while appearing to give the paper autonomy. The fact that flagrant, visible abuse would be self-defeating doesn't really tell us anything.
I guess I'd ask this: if the newspaper is not valuable for its influence, why buy it at all? It will not make him money, he is not bored. Even if he is buying it to keep it out of other hands, that remains an agenda and an active use of influence.
what does "… alien who has only a tangential in human affairs" even mean? he owns a huge commerce company and just bought a newspaper. isn't he trying to launch humans into space? didn't he recover the rockets from one of humanities greatest space exploits? doesn't he have a famous laugh?
The first is the courage to say wait, be sure, slow down, get another source. Real people and their reputations, livelihoods and families are at stake.
A 1000 times. At least it won't turn into the next PandoDaily(and its BeachMint fiasco).
A little of both I suspect. The Washington Post can generate a very modest profit if it's well run. It's around 1/4th to 1/5th the size of the New York Times.
The question would seem to be, whether Bezos intends to run a tight profitable ship, or if he is willing to forgo the profits for a larger staff. I'm hoping he has something creative in mind, a new business model that isn't free+ads or just a copy of what the NYT is doing.
WaPo is #8 by its daily circulation in the US, and #4 for its Sunday circulation.
I bet he puts up a paywall, but offers free access to Prime members. Combined with instant video and other benefits, Prime starts to look pretty attractive, even without the free shipping. But once you've got the free fast shipping, it's much easier to justify buying stuff from Amazon instead.
Few people were aware that a sale was in the works for the paper, whose reporters have broken such stories as the Pentagon Papers, the Watergate scandals and disclosures about the National Security Administration’s surveillance program in May.
Claiming credit for the NSA story seems disingenuous at best, especially given their antagonism towards Snowden:
It's actually probably best, from the point of view of dealing with the NSA wiretapping, that we forget about Snowden and focus on what the NSA is still doing.
So the comment was both off topic and toxic towards what it wanted to advance.
Well if Snowden had given WaPo something other than a "publish in 48 hours" ultimatum there may have been less 'antagonism'. I'll say that the Washington Post Express I've been reading on the Metro was certainly not antagonistic to Snowden.
It's worthwhile to point out that the people who write editorials and opinion columns for the paper are often firewalled somewhat from the actual journalists, so you can't really reduce it to a single belief that the entire organization has.
Especially a paper like the Washington Post which has a ridiculous number of opinion writers on staff.
I think the WaPo should start a section that's full of Hustler style porn. When people complain about porn in their Washington Post, they can just say "That's a separate department!". TLDR: if you disgrace your sub-organization, you disgrace the entire organization.
Nope. Snowden gave the Post some of his info (the infamous slides), they refused to publish it, he gave it to the Guardian, who did publish it, and the Washington Post followed with their story one day later.
Prism was not a day later. From the very article linked to above:
Although the Guardian and the Post published nearly simultaneously on the PRISM story, it looks like the Post may have beaten the Guardian, only just, in getting the story live.
I believe what you are referring to is the initial Verizon FISA story that started the whole thing.
Sorry but did you even bother to read the links you posted ? Because the behaviour of Washington Post is completely legitimate and common sense. Of course they aren't just got to post the PRISM presentation verbatim without redaction.
From reading this I can understand the antagonism towards Snowden. He deserves it.
They deserve credit, they DID publish one of the first stories about it. The editorials page has been really shitty about the whole subject but in their defense it was already a cesspool before Snowden's NSA leaks.
I'm a bit surprised Buffett didn't make a play for that asset, particularly given his recent expeditions in buying more newspapers. Perhaps he regards Bezos as a better long term steward given the age difference. At the least Buffett had to give his blessing to this deal, and absolutely knew about it and chose not to outbid Bezos.
He played that asset a long time ago: Berkshire bought about 20% in 1973, and was on the board until 2011. But yes, he absolutely knew about this.
He paid $11 million and is getting about $44 million after 40 years of holding it. That's kind of lousy rate of return, and the newspaper business has some question marks. So I can see why he might not be interested in buying it. And if Bezos is buying the paper for civic-minded reasons, I could see Buffet encouraging him.
The Washington Post is only a small piece of the WPO company, which has a market cap of $4.4 Billion. So by my math Buffett paid $11 million for a 20% share of a company that's now worth $4.4 Billion, or a net return of 80 times over 40 years, which isn't up to Buffett's usual returns, but not too bad.
Pretty much every newspaper is a corporation... that's the only legal entity that makes sense, given that it has to own a building, pay salaries, sue and be sued, etc.
Being owned by a massive non-media-related corporation would be concerning, but this is Bezos personally.
Bezos goal may be to force users to more digital media. Amazon has been trying to push its publications by forcing book print companies out of the market, by cornering newspapers as well, Amazon could make it self the centralized location for e-media.
Nobody is saying that Bezos will be a steward of good journalism (I can't see him doing much worse as the head of a major news medium than Rupert Murdoch, though) and has reasons to buy the paper that go beyond, ultimately, making more money.
But from a technology enthusiast standpoint, it can't be denied that the guy has a amazing track record of innovating the sectors he has been involved in, and personally I'm curious to see how he will tackle this one.
The main takeaway from the story, in my opinion, is seeing a steady trend of the "new" technology companies trying to get in a position of influence, like Facebook interested in getting into politics, Google having already plenty of lobbying/funding activities, and now Amazon getting its own paper...
Does anyone believe or trust in the American propaganda machine (i.e. mainstream media)? We live in a world of stories that seem to be in a perpetual loop. When we eliminate news for the sake of ratings or the number of papers/magazines sold, then we return to a time when the media will resume reporting on things that matter. The "news" in the US is a dumbed down version of TMZ and that's being nice.
241 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 270 ms ] thread(see showherst's comment for accuracy)
EDIT: Nope, just the newspapers. See the press release -
The transaction covers The Washington Post and other publishing businesses, including the Express newspaper, The Gazette Newspapers, Southern Maryland Newspapers, Fairfax County Times, El Tiempo Latino and Greater Washington Publishing.
Slate magazine, TheRoot.com and Foreign Policy are not part of the transaction and will remain with The Washington Post Company, as will the WaPo Labs and SocialCode businesses, the Company’s interest in Classified Ventures and certain real estate assets, including the headquarters building in downtown Washington, DC. The Washington Post Company, which also owns Kaplan, Post–Newsweek Stations and Cable ONE, will be changing its name in connection with the transaction; no new name has yet been announced
>The deal does not include the company’s headquarters on 15th St. NW in Washington (the building has been for sale since February), or Foreign Policy magazine, Slate.com, the Root.com, the WaPo Labs digital-development operation or Post-owned land along the Potomac River in Alexandria.
The Washington Post is an important institution for the USA, and comments like this make it seem that Bezos will be a good steward. I hope, and am fairly certain, that this is a good thing for everyone involved.
As far as I know, he has no experience in reporting the unbiased truth and a lot of experience in selling stuff.
Update: Slashdot founder Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda (who was hired by WaPo Labs last year) confirms on Google+ that he and his team aren't going with the paper: https://plus.google.com/+CmdrTaco/posts/1V2ZpbjcgbB
Yea, I hope his boss doesn't put him on a reporting job.
Think of it this way: Jeff Bezos is a majority shareholder (at least according to reports, he is not taking on the chairman/CEO role). Normally, the only control a majority shareholder has is to elect/remove the board.
If he attempts to effect other control, particularly by suggestion to the board/whatever, they need to make disinterested decisions.
So the short answer to your question is "always". Every board decision needs to be made by disinterested directors after full disclosure of the facts by any interested directors. Anything else would be a self-dealing transaction, and would possibly subject them to personal liability.
> "Bezos himself will buy the news organization and become its sole owner when the sale is completed, probably within 60 days."
It also has a board of directors and a chairman of the board/CEO (which is who the "Don" guy he talks about is).
This is also explained in The Washington Post Company's August 5th 8K filing with the SEC[1], which states unambiguously "the Purchaser will acquire all the issued and outstanding equity securities of [...]" and "The Purchaser will not acquire the Company’s interests in [...]".:
> On August 5, 2013, The Washington Post Company (the “Company”), entered into a binding letter agreement (the “Letter Agreement”) with Nash Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Purchaser”), and Explore Holdings LLC, a Washington limited liability company, as guarantor (the “Guarantor”), pursuant to which the Purchaser will acquire all the issued and outstanding equity securities of each of WP Company LLC, Express Publications Company, LLC, El Tiempo Latino, LLC, Robinson Terminal Warehouse, LLC, Greater Washington Publishing, LLC and Post-Newsweek Media, LLC (the “Publishing Subsidiaries”). The Publishing Subsidiaries together conduct most of the Company’s publishing businesses, including publishing The Washington Post, Express, The Gazette Newspapers, Southern Maryland Newspapers, Fairfax County Times and El Tiempo Latino and related websites, and operating Washington Post Live and Washington Post News Media Services and the Company’s commercial printing and distribution business and paper handling and storage business (collectively, the “Publishing Business”). The Purchaser will also acquire all other assets of the Company primarily related to the Publishing Business, including all of the Company’s rights in the name “The Washington Post”. The Company will change its corporate name within 60 days following the closing. The Purchaser will not acquire the Company’s interests in Classified Ventures, LLC, The Slate Group LLC, The FP Group, WaPo Labs and certain excluded real estate. Liabilities and assets under the Retirement Plan for The Washington Post Companies relating to the active employees of the Publishing Business will be transferred to the Purchaser.
"WP Company LLC", in particular, is the newspaper The Washington Post. See e.g. [2] which says "WP Company LLC d/b/a The Washington Post.".
You can further consult The Washington Post Company's press release[3], which again states:
> Slate magazine, TheRoot.com and Foreign Policy are not part of the transaction and will remain with The Washington Post Company, as will the WaPo Labs and SocialCode businesses, the Company’s interest in Classified Ventures and certain real estate assets, including the headquarters building in downtown Washington, DC. The Washington Post Company, which also owns Kaplan, Post–Newsweek Stations and Cable ONE, will be changing its name in connection with the transaction; no new name has yet been announced.
[1] http://services.corporate-ir.net/SEC/Document.Service?id=P3V...
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/terms-of-service/2011/11/18/gI...
[3] http://www.washpostco.com/phoenix.zhtml?...
I have never really been drawn to the Kindle for books (except the large-but-expensive model) but it would be ideal for daily news - in fact the screen seems to pick up where newsprint left off. I'm old-fashioned enough to even like the idea of having everything in black & white.
Is Jeff pursuing a content strategy? Washington Post for investigation and Business Insider for Biz news would be great.
Personally I'd rather have Jeff Bezos than Rupert Murdoch, but maybe that's just me...
Hmm! Didn't notice that, interesting.
Murdoch is easily one of the most evil people to have ever walked on this planet. He enabled the Iraq war which has seen a mass loss of life for no real gain. He supported the widespread hacking of UK citizens. His meddling in politics and elections in the UK, US and Australia is unprecedented, brazen and has unquestionably undermined democracy.
Even now he flew over an Editor from the NY Post to Australia to influence the election here who already is shocking the political scene here.
Even if I were to believe that, it would be an odd comparison to make.
He didn't take a negative or neutral position. He actively campaigned for it across three continents (UK, US and Australia). And it has been widely reported that Blair was heavily influenced by Murdoch.
The NYT didn't officially take a position. It just failed in its duty to check the facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War
Yeah him and healthy majorities of both houses of Congress. Did Parliament not get the memo?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_International_phone_hackin...
Was that undermining democracy?
http://mumbrella.com.au/stephen-conroy-an-apology-171009
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013...
On the first day of an election campaign the headline was:
"Finally you now have the chance to KICK THIS MOB OUT"
http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2013/08/05/1226691/2756...
That is undermining democracy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/07/aol-huffington-post...
The Washington Post seems to have an incredible reputation (especially if they really did break the Pentagon Papers and others) and be a fun purchase if you have f-you money.
I mean, sorry for the cynicism, but this is an obvious conflict of interest. Retail, distribution, infrastructure, and now politics & media.
The man can do what he wants but the public probably shouldn't applaud this.
I suspect it's a power grab for influence in the long-term. Big media shapes the discourse, debate, and policy of the country. He can be a much more effective broker of business and societal matters now that he manages "the truth."
I think, at least :/
It's possible this is an elaborate ruse to fool the Graham family into selling their crown jewel (reputationally, at least. The Kaplan test preparation unit is the tail that now wags the profit dog at Washington Post, Inc., as I understand it.). However, that seems like a stretch. I'd much rather have a paper run as a hobby by a man (even a profoundly eccentric one) who can afford it than a board desperate to maximize quarterly earnings.
Doesn't mean we can't raise awareness of it each time it happens. That is, not applaud powerful people getting even more powerful.
There are also alternative forms of ownership, but that's a more complex subject not fit for a message board.
At the very least it is a situation ripe for misunderstandings leading to bad end results and at the worst is fertile ground for lobbyists and special interests.
I've read here a hundred times complaints that mainstream media don't cover tech news as it should and I tend to agree.
Bezos is a rich, powerful man. But it's "our" rich, powerful man, so I for one, am happy with this acquisition.
I kinda disagree with you on this one. Not only will something like the Kindle and Kindle apps benefit, but this is a huge win since the old style of media wasn't capable of figuring out how to stay in business. The reason why the Kindle, iTunes, Google Play or any other store is succeeding while the rest are failing is because all the rest didn't have monetized digital distribution mechanisms. All media was given out for free and now you can't stay in business if you decide to pay-wall your website. They weren't smart about it. However all other walled gardens are thriving because they are monetized from the get go and an effort has been made to make them simple to use.
The public is the winner here, and the Kindle. The only loser is probably B&N.
Also, what about all the TV and radio networks? Their ownership is wider than the three people you list.
So I guess there's Kerry Stokes. And whoever is looking after 9 these days.
I submit that there was no possible set of actions the newspapers could have taken, including worldwide oligopolistic collusion, which could have produced a market in which any but a few "luxury" brands can charge media consumers directly. The basic service of telling us what happened over the last 12 hours is one that wants to be free.
That is a convenient position to hold. You can't be wrong!
Parent's point is that WaPo/Bezos shouldn't be damned either way in this case.
And sure, people can be intellectually lazy and only read sources that they agree with, but the fallacy of unbiased journalism is that a handful of media outlets will end up providing that anyway, just with the illusion of impartiality.
It's all that matters. :P
We happen to be a thoughtful community and a decent newsreader without (a lot of) hierarchy. If it migrates elsewhere, I will as well. I find many of Graham's old essays amusing in the abstract sense (they're Austrian Economics rehashed in the language of computer science), but question his intentions.
Could be but I don't think that's the case. I think there is something else going on here either vanity or some underlying access or asset that provides much greater value to Bezos that has not much to do with Amazon either.
I mean if you have that much money you can afford to buy and have it lose money for years just for other valuable benefits and access. WP is a mouthpiece he could swing elections (influence is way beyond their circulation).
You can, but you can also believe in journalism and be willing to spend some of your money on keeping it alive.
Not sure we can really make an automatic judgement either way.
I was surprised when Jack Welsh (x GE) wanted to buy the Boston Globe (he backed out). He realized the the shine was one of the past. It's interesting that Bezos sees value here but I think the value is in the same sense taking a small part of his billions and buying something that is a legend. (After all rich people buy art and other trinkets because they can so why not a newspaper?).
Although, to his credit, he and his wife did kick in $2.5mm to the Washington state marriage equality referendum last November: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/07/27/jeff-be...
My money's on Jeff - he's got something up his sleeve here.
I regard earning money in a productive fashion and without the use of force to be one of the greatest things a person can do. That's my belief, and I don't force anybody else to agree with me.
There are radically cheaper ways to have influence. He could set up a PAC, seed it with $50 million, and directly buy whatever influence he needs.
The thing about buying one of the few really national papers and slanting its coverage: your competitors will have a field day and it won't be long before your paper is a joke that nobody takes seriously.
I don't think he has much room to abuse this for influence.
Washington doesn't have room for another joke of a paper that nobody takes seriously[1]!
[1] http://www.washingtontimes.com/
Major newspapers have been systemically biased for decades but many people still take them seriously.
Calling people and starting a PAC with a transparent agenda is not nearly as powerful as controlling one of the few trusted, prestigious political news outlets left. You can influence operations without directly interfering in the newsroom, and you can do so while appearing to give the paper autonomy. The fact that flagrant, visible abuse would be self-defeating doesn't really tell us anything.
I guess I'd ask this: if the newspaper is not valuable for its influence, why buy it at all? It will not make him money, he is not bored. Even if he is buying it to keep it out of other hands, that remains an agenda and an active use of influence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/washington-post-to-be...
A 1000 times. At least it won't turn into the next PandoDaily(and its BeachMint fiasco).
The question would seem to be, whether Bezos intends to run a tight profitable ship, or if he is willing to forgo the profits for a larger staff. I'm hoping he has something creative in mind, a new business model that isn't free+ads or just a copy of what the NYT is doing.
WaPo is #8 by its daily circulation in the US, and #4 for its Sunday circulation.
Claiming credit for the NSA story seems disingenuous at best, especially given their antagonism towards Snowden:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/06/how-washingt...
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130702/11474423694/washin...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jul/10/washing...
EDIT: While acknowledging the WaPo's significant contributions in the early 70s, it seems like they lost their way somewhere along the line:
Washington Post Kills Account of Its Failures in Iraq Reporting and Runs a Defense Instead http://gawker.com/5992158/washington-post-kills-account-of-i...
So the comment was both off topic and toxic towards what it wanted to advance.
(Please do not get rid of any Snowden comments/posts on HN until the Police State is dismantled, hopefully by mid-next week.
And by the way, at the time of writing 27 of the top 30 articles don't mention Snowden in the comments, so...
Feel free to bury your head in the sand.
Especially a paper like the Washington Post which has a ridiculous number of opinion writers on staff.
Glenn Greenwald broke the story in the Guardian.
Although the Guardian and the Post published nearly simultaneously on the PRISM story, it looks like the Post may have beaten the Guardian, only just, in getting the story live.
I believe what you are referring to is the initial Verizon FISA story that started the whole thing.
From reading this I can understand the antagonism towards Snowden. He deserves it.
He paid $11 million and is getting about $44 million after 40 years of holding it. That's kind of lousy rate of return, and the newspaper business has some question marks. So I can see why he might not be interested in buying it. And if Bezos is buying the paper for civic-minded reasons, I could see Buffet encouraging him.
Can't wait for it to become another CNBC infomercial.
Being owned by a massive non-media-related corporation would be concerning, but this is Bezos personally.
For journalism to be truth, it must remain independent.
- Good. I hope it's a fresh issue?
- ...issue!?
Nobody is saying that Bezos will be a steward of good journalism (I can't see him doing much worse as the head of a major news medium than Rupert Murdoch, though) and has reasons to buy the paper that go beyond, ultimately, making more money.
But from a technology enthusiast standpoint, it can't be denied that the guy has a amazing track record of innovating the sectors he has been involved in, and personally I'm curious to see how he will tackle this one.
The main takeaway from the story, in my opinion, is seeing a steady trend of the "new" technology companies trying to get in a position of influence, like Facebook interested in getting into politics, Google having already plenty of lobbying/funding activities, and now Amazon getting its own paper...
Worst compliment ever.
created: 9 days ago
karma: 549
avg: 2.34
Has to be a record.
Half of what I read is bull and the other half is shit.