To: Martin Baron, Executive Editor, and Kevin
Merida, Managing Editor, the Washington PostĀ Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā Ā
January 2, 2014
Dear Mr. Baron and Mr. Merida:
On behalf of more than 25,000 signers of a petition to the Washington Post, Iām writing this letter to request a brief meeting to present the petition at a time that would be convenient for you on January 14 or 15. Here is the text of the petition, launched by RootsAction.org.
āA basic principle of journalism is to acknowledge when the owner of a media outlet has a major financial relationship with the subject of coverage. We strongly urge the Washington Post to be fully candid with its readers about the fact that the newspaperās new owner, Jeff Bezos, is the founder and CEO of Amazon which recently landed a $600 million contract with the CIA. The Washington Postās coverage of the CIA should include full disclosure that the sole owner of the Post is also the main owner of Amazonāand Amazon is now gaining huge profits directly from the CIA.ā
Ā
The petition includes cogent comments by many of the people who signed it. I hope that you can set aside perhaps 10 minutes for the purpose of receiving the petition and hearing a summary of its signersā concerns. For confirmation of an appointment, I can be reached on my cellphone.
Thank you.
Sincerely, Norman Solomon
Director and Cofounder
Ā RootsAction.org
Ā
Dear Mr. Solomon:
Thank you for your note. I was able to read the petition on the RootsAction.org site and to see the list of those who signed it. I certainly would be happy to review any additional information you might send. The Post has among the strictest ethics policies in the field of journalism, and we vigorously enforce it. We have routinely disclosed corporate conflicts when they were directly relevant to our coverage. We reported on Amazonās pursuit of CIA contracts in our coverage of plans by Jeff Bezos to purchase the Washington Post. We also have been very aggressive in our coverage of the intelligence community, including the CIA, NSA, and other agencies, as you should know.
The Post was at the leading edge of disclosures about the NSA in 2013. Most recently, it reported on the CIAās hidden involvement in Colombiaās fight against FARC rebels, including a fatal missile attack across the border in Ecuador. You can be sure neither the NSA nor the CIA has been pleased with publication of their secrets. Neither Amazon nor Jeff Bezos was involved, nor ever will be involved, in our coverage of the intelligence community.
The petitionās request for disclosure of Amazonās CIA contract in every story we write about the CIA is well outside the norm of conflict-of-interest disclosures at media companies. The Post is a personal investment by Jeff Bezos, whose stake in Amazon is large but well less than a majority. The CIAās multi-year contract with Amazon is a small fraction of company revenues that have been estimated at roughly $75 billion in 2013. Amazon maintains no corporate connection to the Post.
Even so, we have been careful to disclose Jeff Bezosā connection to the Post and Amazon when directly relevant to our coverage, and we will continue to do so. For example, such disclosures would be called for in coverage circumstances such as the following: CIA contracting practices, the CIAās use of cloud services, big-data initiatives at the CIA, Amazonās pursuit of cloud services as a line of business, and Amazon corporate matters in general.
We take ethics very seriously here at the Post. One of our policies is that we seek comment from the subjects of our stories prior to publishing them and that we make a genuine effort to hear and absorb their point of view. By contrast, I am unaware of any effort to hear us out prior to the launch of this petition drive. A personal meeting now does not seem necessary or useful. I hope this note explains our perspective. And again, if you wish to send additional information that you feel might be helpful to us, we will review it closely.
Sincerely,
Martin Baron
Executive Editor
The Washington Post
Dear Mr. Baron:
Thank you for your letter. Whatever the Postās guidelines and record on ethical standards, few journalists could have anticipated ownership of the paper by a multibillionaire whose outside company would be so closely tied to the CIA. Updating of the standards is now appropriate. You write that the Washington Post has āroutinely disclosed corporate conflicts when they were directly relevant to our coverage.ā
But the RootsAction.org petition is urging the Post to provide readers of its CIA coverage with full disclosure that would adequately addressāand meaningfully inform readers aboutārelevant circumstances of the current ownership.
Those circumstances are not adequately met by a narrow definition of ācorporate conflicts.ā A reality is that the Post is now solely owned by someone who is by far the largest stakeholder in a world-spanning corporate giant that has close business tiesāand is seeking more extensive deals than its current $600 million contractāwith the CIA, an agency which the newspaper reports on regularly.
The petition requests that the Washington Post adopt a full disclosure policy that is commensurate with this situation. The gist of the request is recognition that, as the saying goes, sunshine is the best disinfectant for any potential conflict of interest.
When you write that the Post has a policy of routinely disclosing corporate conflicts when ādirectly relevant to our coverage,ā a key question comes to the fore: What is ādirectly relevantā? Given that few agencies are more secretive than the CIAāand even the most enterprising reporters are challenged to pry loose even a small fraction of its secretsāhow do we know which CIA stories are ādirectly relevantā to the fact that Amazon is providing cloud computing services to the CIA?
Amazonās contract with the CIA is based on an assessment that Amazon Web Services can provide the agency with digital-data computing security that is second to none. We can assume that a vast amount of information about CIA activities is to be safeguarded by Amazon. With what assurance can we say which stories on CIA activities are not ādirectly relevantā to Jeff Bezosās dual role as sole owner of the Post and largest stakeholder in Amazon?
We actually donāt know what sort of data is involved in what your letter calls āthe CIAās use of cloud services.ā The disclosure/non-disclosure policy that youāve outlined seems to presume that, for instance, there would be no direct relevance of the cloud services contract to coverage of such matters as CIA involvement in rendition of prisoners to regimes for torture; or in targeting for drone strikes; or in data aggregation for counterinsurgency. Are you assuming that the Postās coverage of such topics is not ādirectly relevantā to the Bezos/Amazon ties with the CIA and therefore should not include disclosure of the financial ties that bind the Postās owner to the CIA?
Readers of a Post story on the CIAāwhether about drones or a still-secret torture report, to name just two topicsāshould be informed of the Post/Bezos/ Amazon/CIA financial ties. In the absence of such in-story disclosure, there is every reason to believe that many readers will be unaware that the Postās owner is someone with a major financial stake in an Amazon-CIA deal worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
If Amazonās $600 million multiyear cloud contract with the CIA is a small fraction of the companyās revenue, there is clear intent for it to grow larger. And $600 million is, by itself, hardly insignificant; letās remember that Mr. Bezos bought the Post for less than half that amount.
āWe look forward to a successful relationship with the CIA,ā a statement from Amazon said two months ago. In public statements, Mr. Bezos and Amazon have made clear that they view this as a growing part of Amazonās business: a feather in the corporate cap of the company in its drive to increase market share of such business operations. This is intended as a major and expansive income source for Amazon and for its CEO, Mr. Bezos, whose personal wealth of $25 billion is a consequence of Amazonās financial gains.
Why not provide a sentence in the Postās substantive coverage of CIA activities, to the effect that āThe Postās owner Jeff Bezos is the largest stakeholder in Amazon, which has a $600 million contract with the CIAā?
By declining to provide such disclosure, the Post is failing the transparency test when coverage of the CIA falls outside of the circumscribed areas where your letter says Post policy now provides for disclosure (āCIA contracting practices, the CIAās use of cloud services, big-data initiatives at the CIA, Amazonās pursuit of cloud services as a line of business, and Amazon corporate matters in generalā).
Such concerns are among the reasons why tens of thousands of people, including many Post readers, have signed the petition to the Washington Post that I will be delivering on January 15. While itās unfortunate that you donāt want to have a meeting for a few minutes on that day, I hope that you will mull over the concerns that are propelling this forward.
Sincerely,
Norman Solomon
RootsAction.org
Dear Mr. Solomon:
Thank you for expanding upon your views.Ā Just to reiterate, the Post has among the strictest ethics policies in the field of journalism. Those policies are sufficiently expansive, comprehensive, and current to take into account The Postās acquisition by Jeff Bezos. The policies are strictly enforced. However, as I explained in detail in my previous note, your proposal is far outside the norm of disclosures about potential conflicts of interest at media organizations.
Meantime, as plain evidence of our independence, we will continue our aggressive coverage of the intelligence community, including the CIA. I hope youāve noticed it. The CIA has, and itās not happy.
Sincerely,
Martin Baron, Executive Editor
the Washington Post
Ā
Norman Solomon is co-founder of RootsAction.org and founding director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. This article was sent by ZNet.
Ā
Ā