杰夫·贝佐斯在亚马逊的长期顾问批评《华盛顿邮报》领导层在最后一刻摒弃为总统候选人背书,称这一决定是“懦夫行为”,并表示他认为此举反映了贝佐斯的经典商业原则,即通过避免不必要的错误来保护自身利益。
虽然贝佐斯曾表示,《华盛顿邮报》放弃为卡玛拉·哈里斯(Kamala Harris)背书是“基于原则做出的决定”,旨在提高公众对媒体的信任,但在前亚马逊公关主管克雷格·伯曼(Craig Berman)看来,这种解释说好听点是片面的,说不好听点是值得怀疑的。伯曼指出,贝佐斯对蓝色起源(Blue Origin)的兴趣、与埃隆·马斯克的竞争,以及对特朗普入主白宫后可能产生的后果的担忧,很可能是他终止《华盛顿邮报》支持哈里斯的潜在动机。
伯曼在接受《财富》杂志独家采访时谈到了贝佐斯的理由:“我认为这是一种非常实用的原则。”
贝佐斯在周一打破沉默,就此次丑闻发表回应。他在《华盛顿邮报》发表的一篇“上司的备忘录”中指出,像他所拥有的传统媒体正遭遇信任危机,而发布对总统候选人的背书只会让情况变得更糟。
他写道:“总统候选人背书实际上会造成偏见,并给人留下缺乏独立性的印象。”尽管贝佐斯承认,做出这一决定的时机并不恰当(距离大选不到两周),但他表示,这是由于“计划不周,而非有意为之”。
根据伯曼对贝佐斯的了解——考虑到他与亚马逊创始人贝佐斯共事近15年——他表示,不出所料,贝佐斯的火箭公司蓝色起源的未来在这一决定中扮演着重要角色。
伯曼在谈及贝佐斯及其太空公司时表示:“这不仅仅是一项事业,蓝色起源对他而言就像亲生孩子一样。目前,这无疑是他最为关注的领域。”
贝佐斯经常谈到这家公司对他个人遗产的重要性,并从存在主义的角度阐述了公司的使命。他表示:“我们必须进入太空以拯救地球。”
不过,蓝色起源仍需要收入来维持运营,而政府合同是这家火箭公司的主要资金来源。蓝色起源与美国航空航天局(NASA)签订了一份价值34亿美元的协议,用于建造月球“着陆器”,它与埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)的SpaceX公司不仅在争取政府合同方面存在竞争,而且在人才和发射台方面也存在竞争。
贝佐斯所面临的挑战在于,马斯克近期已转变为特朗普的坚定盟友,7月份为其背书,并向特朗普和其他共和党候选人捐赠超过1亿美元。这位特斯拉(Tesla)和SpaceX公司的首席执行官[还拥有一家原名为推特(Twitter)的公司]本月还多次在特朗普的集会上露面。无论可信与否,特朗普甚至表示如果自己再次当选,他将责成马斯克领导一项旨在削减政府开支的倡议。
根据伯曼的说法,马斯克“一直是贝佐斯的眼中钉”。
伯曼在接受《财富》杂志采访时表示:“你不能忽视埃隆的背景。他坚定地支持特朗普,我可以想象杰夫坐在那里关注这一切时的心情,他可能会想:‘天哪,如果特朗普胜选,那本身就够糟糕的了,更何况埃隆一直在支持他。但如果我们还支持哈里斯……那简直是自找麻烦。’在亚马逊,他总是强调避免自找麻烦。”
简而言之,伯曼认为贝佐斯更担心的是蓝色起源的长远前景及其对人类未来的重要性,而不是读者短期内产生的不满情绪(原因是他的报纸没有按照《华盛顿邮报》编辑部的计划为卡玛拉·哈里斯背书)。
美联社报道称,在《华盛顿邮报》宣布放弃为任何总统候选人背书的当天,蓝色起源的首席执行官、亚马逊前高管戴夫·林普(Dave Limp)与前总统唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)进行了短暂会面。这一消息随后被广泛传播。
贝佐斯在周一发表的专栏文章中坚称,这其中不存在任何利益交换,并明确表示两位候选人及其团队在《华盛顿邮报》做出决定之前并不知情。他承认,在得知特朗普与蓝色起源的会面的消息时,他“叹了口气”,并表示自己对这次会面一无所知,而林普也是在当天上午才得知这一计划。
贝佐斯写道:“当我得知这一消息时,我叹了口气,因为我意识到这将成为那些企图将这一决定曲解为非原则性决定的人的把柄。”
在这篇专栏文章发表之前,伯曼在接受《财富》杂志采访时已经预见到,他的前上司对于这一时机的选择可能会感到不悦。
伯曼表示:“这简直是一出彻头彻尾的《启斯东警察》(Keystone Cops)闹剧。你怎么能在林普与特朗普会面的当天发布这种新闻呢?我甚至无法理解这有多拙劣。杰夫肯定会对此感到愤怒。这无疑会给他带来困扰。”
贝佐斯在特朗普担任总统期间与他发生过争执。这位前总统经常公开抨击亚马逊与美国邮政服务(U.S. Postal Service)的配送合同,以及《华盛顿邮报》对他的报道。另一方面,亚马逊起诉特朗普政府,称由于特朗普的不满,政府取消了一项价值100亿美元的云计算合同。
总统候选人背书禁令标志着自1976年以来,《华盛顿邮报》第二次放弃为总统候选人背书。(1988年,该报编辑部曾向读者详细解释了为何放弃支持任何一位候选人。在20世纪30年代和40年代的一段时间内,该报的一位前任出版商也曾拒绝为总统候选人背书。)然而,今年《华盛顿邮报》编辑部却在一些地方国会竞选中发表了背书声明,这引发了公众对出版商和贝佐斯本人给出的“背书会引发偏见”这一官方解释的质疑。
无论如何,许多愤怒的读者通过取消订阅来表达他们的不满,美国全国公共广播电台(NPR)周一报道称,自《华盛顿邮报》宣布这一决定以来的短短几天内,就有超过20万订户——至少占该报付费会员的8%——取消了会员资格。然而,伯曼预测,这一数字对贝佐斯的决策影响不大。
伯曼说:“这些对他来说不是问题。真正的问题在于,如果他支持卡玛拉·哈里斯而特朗普却赢得了选举,他的蓝色起源可能会遭受沉重打击。”
伯曼在亚马逊担任高级公关职位超过14年之久,其中包括担任整个公司公关主管近10年。在他职业生涯的早期,伯曼还曾协助国会候选人开展竞选活动。
和许多观察人士一样,伯曼坚持认为,如果贝佐斯在几个月甚至几年前就做出决定并宣布放弃为总统候选人背书,人们会更容易相信他是完全透明的。贝佐斯表示,他对做出这一决定的时机感到遗憾,但表示这是由于“计划不周全,而非有意为之”。
贝佐斯的前顾问表示:“反复回想这个时间点,只会引出更多无端的猜测,让你陷入无谓的遐想。”
伯曼补充说,无论这一决策是否完全由贝佐斯拍板,其行为都显得“懦弱”。
他说:“如果你追求的是纯粹的新闻报道,那就应该取消编辑部。但是,你不能随意挑选自己想要参与的论战。在我看来,这是无稽之谈。新闻自由的部分原因在于能够表达观点。我只是觉得,你不能既追求新闻的纯粹性,又在论战中保持中立。”(财富中文网)
译者:中慧言-王芳
杰夫·贝佐斯在亚马逊的长期顾问批评《华盛顿邮报》领导层在最后一刻摒弃为总统候选人背书,称这一决定是“懦夫行为”,并表示他认为此举反映了贝佐斯的经典商业原则,即通过避免不必要的错误来保护自身利益。
虽然贝佐斯曾表示,《华盛顿邮报》放弃为卡玛拉·哈里斯(Kamala Harris)背书是“基于原则做出的决定”,旨在提高公众对媒体的信任,但在前亚马逊公关主管克雷格·伯曼(Craig Berman)看来,这种解释说好听点是片面的,说不好听点是值得怀疑的。伯曼指出,贝佐斯对蓝色起源(Blue Origin)的兴趣、与埃隆·马斯克的竞争,以及对特朗普入主白宫后可能产生的后果的担忧,很可能是他终止《华盛顿邮报》支持哈里斯的潜在动机。
伯曼在接受《财富》杂志独家采访时谈到了贝佐斯的理由:“我认为这是一种非常实用的原则。”
贝佐斯在周一打破沉默,就此次丑闻发表回应。他在《华盛顿邮报》发表的一篇“上司的备忘录”中指出,像他所拥有的传统媒体正遭遇信任危机,而发布对总统候选人的背书只会让情况变得更糟。
他写道:“总统候选人背书实际上会造成偏见,并给人留下缺乏独立性的印象。”尽管贝佐斯承认,做出这一决定的时机并不恰当(距离大选不到两周),但他表示,这是由于“计划不周,而非有意为之”。
根据伯曼对贝佐斯的了解——考虑到他与亚马逊创始人贝佐斯共事近15年——他表示,不出所料,贝佐斯的火箭公司蓝色起源的未来在这一决定中扮演着重要角色。
伯曼在谈及贝佐斯及其太空公司时表示:“这不仅仅是一项事业,蓝色起源对他而言就像亲生孩子一样。目前,这无疑是他最为关注的领域。”
贝佐斯经常谈到这家公司对他个人遗产的重要性,并从存在主义的角度阐述了公司的使命。他表示:“我们必须进入太空以拯救地球。”
不过,蓝色起源仍需要收入来维持运营,而政府合同是这家火箭公司的主要资金来源。蓝色起源与美国航空航天局(NASA)签订了一份价值34亿美元的协议,用于建造月球“着陆器”,它与埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)的SpaceX公司不仅在争取政府合同方面存在竞争,而且在人才和发射台方面也存在竞争。
贝佐斯所面临的挑战在于,马斯克近期已转变为特朗普的坚定盟友,7月份为其背书,并向特朗普和其他共和党候选人捐赠超过1亿美元。这位特斯拉(Tesla)和SpaceX公司的首席执行官[还拥有一家原名为推特(Twitter)的公司]本月还多次在特朗普的集会上露面。无论可信与否,特朗普甚至表示如果自己再次当选,他将责成马斯克领导一项旨在削减政府开支的倡议。
根据伯曼的说法,马斯克“一直是贝佐斯的眼中钉”。
伯曼在接受《财富》杂志采访时表示:“你不能忽视埃隆的背景。他坚定地支持特朗普,我可以想象杰夫坐在那里关注这一切时的心情,他可能会想:‘天哪,如果特朗普胜选,那本身就够糟糕的了,更何况埃隆一直在支持他。但如果我们还支持哈里斯……那简直是自找麻烦。’在亚马逊,他总是强调避免自找麻烦。”
简而言之,伯曼认为贝佐斯更担心的是蓝色起源的长远前景及其对人类未来的重要性,而不是读者短期内产生的不满情绪(原因是他的报纸没有按照《华盛顿邮报》编辑部的计划为卡玛拉·哈里斯背书)。
美联社报道称,在《华盛顿邮报》宣布放弃为任何总统候选人背书的当天,蓝色起源的首席执行官、亚马逊前高管戴夫·林普(Dave Limp)与前总统唐纳德·特朗普(Donald Trump)进行了短暂会面。这一消息随后被广泛传播。
贝佐斯在周一发表的专栏文章中坚称,这其中不存在任何利益交换,并明确表示两位候选人及其团队在《华盛顿邮报》做出决定之前并不知情。他承认,在得知特朗普与蓝色起源的会面的消息时,他“叹了口气”,并表示自己对这次会面一无所知,而林普也是在当天上午才得知这一计划。
贝佐斯写道:“当我得知这一消息时,我叹了口气,因为我意识到这将成为那些企图将这一决定曲解为非原则性决定的人的把柄。”
在这篇专栏文章发表之前,伯曼在接受《财富》杂志采访时已经预见到,他的前上司对于这一时机的选择可能会感到不悦。
伯曼表示:“这简直是一出彻头彻尾的《启斯东警察》(Keystone Cops)闹剧。你怎么能在林普与特朗普会面的当天发布这种新闻呢?我甚至无法理解这有多拙劣。杰夫肯定会对此感到愤怒。这无疑会给他带来困扰。”
贝佐斯在特朗普担任总统期间与他发生过争执。这位前总统经常公开抨击亚马逊与美国邮政服务(U.S. Postal Service)的配送合同,以及《华盛顿邮报》对他的报道。另一方面,亚马逊起诉特朗普政府,称由于特朗普的不满,政府取消了一项价值100亿美元的云计算合同。
总统候选人背书禁令标志着自1976年以来,《华盛顿邮报》第二次放弃为总统候选人背书。(1988年,该报编辑部曾向读者详细解释了为何放弃支持任何一位候选人。在20世纪30年代和40年代的一段时间内,该报的一位前任出版商也曾拒绝为总统候选人背书。)然而,今年《华盛顿邮报》编辑部却在一些地方国会竞选中发表了背书声明,这引发了公众对出版商和贝佐斯本人给出的“背书会引发偏见”这一官方解释的质疑。
无论如何,许多愤怒的读者通过取消订阅来表达他们的不满,美国全国公共广播电台(NPR)周一报道称,自《华盛顿邮报》宣布这一决定以来的短短几天内,就有超过20万订户——至少占该报付费会员的8%——取消了会员资格。然而,伯曼预测,这一数字对贝佐斯的决策影响不大。
伯曼说:“这些对他来说不是问题。真正的问题在于,如果他支持卡玛拉·哈里斯而特朗普却赢得了选举,他的蓝色起源可能会遭受沉重打击。”
伯曼在亚马逊担任高级公关职位超过14年之久,其中包括担任整个公司公关主管近10年。在他职业生涯的早期,伯曼还曾协助国会候选人开展竞选活动。
和许多观察人士一样,伯曼坚持认为,如果贝佐斯在几个月甚至几年前就做出决定并宣布放弃为总统候选人背书,人们会更容易相信他是完全透明的。贝佐斯表示,他对做出这一决定的时机感到遗憾,但表示这是由于“计划不周全,而非有意为之”。
贝佐斯的前顾问表示:“反复回想这个时间点,只会引出更多无端的猜测,让你陷入无谓的遐想。”
伯曼补充说,无论这一决策是否完全由贝佐斯拍板,其行为都显得“懦弱”。
他说:“如果你追求的是纯粹的新闻报道,那就应该取消编辑部。但是,你不能随意挑选自己想要参与的论战。在我看来,这是无稽之谈。新闻自由的部分原因在于能够表达观点。我只是觉得,你不能既追求新闻的纯粹性,又在论战中保持中立。”(财富中文网)
译者:中慧言-王芳
A longtime advisor to Jeff Bezos at Amazon criticized as “cowardly” the last-minute decision by Washington Post leadership to abandon presidential endorsements and said he believes the move reflected a classic Bezos business principle about protecting your self-interest by avoiding unnecessary mistakes.
While Bezos has said that canceling the Post’s endorsement of Kamala Harris was a “principled decision” taken to improve public trust in the media, the explanation came off as incomplete at best, and dubious at worst, to ex-Amazon PR chief Craig Berman, who pointed to Bezos’s interest in Blue Origin, his competition with Elon Musk, and fear of the consequences should Trump win the White House as likely contributing motives for ending the Post’s endorsements.
“I would characterize it as a very convenient principle,” Berman told Fortune exclusively of Bezos’s reasoning.
Bezos broke his silence about the scandal on Monday, writing in a Washington Post “note from the owner” that legacy media outlets like the one he owns are suffering from a media distrust crisis—and that publishing a presidential endorsement would make it worse.
“What presidential endorsements actually do is create a perception of bias. A perception of non-independence,” he wrote. While Bezos acknowledged that the timing—less than two weeks before the election—looked bad, he said it was a result of “inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.”
Reflecting on what he learned about Bezos from working alongside the Amazon founder for nearly 15 years, Berman says he would be shocked if the future of Bezos’s rocket company, Blue Origin, did not play a significant role in the decision.
“It’s personal; it’s his baby,” Berman said of Bezos and his space company. “That’s the one that matters to him right now.”
Bezos has spoken often about the meaning of the company to his legacy and characterized the company’s mission in existential terms. “We have to go into space to save Earth,” he has said.
But Blue Origin still needs revenue to operate, and government contracts are a major source of funding for the rocket company. Blue Origin has a $3.4 billion NASA deal to build a lunar “lander” and competes with Elon Musk’s SpaceX not only for government deals, but also for talent and launchpads as well.
The problem for Bezos is that Musk has recently remade himself as a staunch Trump ally, endorsing the former president in July, and donating more than $100 million to him and other Republican candidates. The Tesla and SpaceX chief executive, who also owns the company formerly known as Twitter, has also made appearances at multiple Trump rallies this month. Trump has even said, whether believable or not, that he would task Musk with leading an initiative to slash government spending if the former president were to be reelected.
And Musk, according to Berman, “has always been a thorn” in Bezos’s side.
“You can’t ignore the Elon context,” Berman said in the interview with Fortune. “He’s 100 percent Trump’s guy, and I could imagine Jeff sitting there looking at this like, ‘Oh man, if Trump wins, it’s bad enough because Elon has been with him this whole time. But if we endorse Harris too…that’s a self-inflicted error.’ And at Amazon, he always talked about hating the self-inflicted wounds.”
In short, Berman imagines Bezos worrying much more about the long-term future of Blue Origin, and what he believes it represents for the future of humanity, than what he might believe will only be short-term furor from readers over his newspaper not endorsing Kamala Harris, as the Washington Post editorial board planned to do.
Such a theory has gained momentum after the Associated Press reported that Blue Origin’s CEO, a former Amazon executive by the name of Dave Limp, had a brief meeting with former President Donald Trump on the same day as the WaPo endorsement announcement.
Bezos insisted in his op-ed on Monday that there was no quid pro quo and that neither candidate nor their teams had been apprised of the Post’s decision before it was made. He admitted that he “sighed” when he learned of Trump’s Blue Origin meeting, claiming that he was unaware of the gathering and that Limp had only learned of the plans that same morning.
“I sighed when I found out, because I knew it would provide ammunition to those who would like to frame this as anything other than a principled decision,” Bezos wrote.
Prior to publication of the op-ed, Berman had predicted in a conversation with Fortune that his former boss would be peeved by that timing.
“It was complete Keystone Cops,” Berman said. “How do you put that news out on the day Limp is meeting with Trump? I don’t even understand how clumsy that was. It would be something Jeff would be pissed about. That was something that will bug him.”
Bezos, on the other hand, sparred with Trump during his term as president. The former president frequently and publicly attacked Amazon’s delivery contract with the U.S. Postal Service, as well as the Washington Post’s coverage of him. Amazon, on the other hand, sued the Trump administration for allegedly scuttling a $10 billion government cloud-computing contract as a result of Trump’s gripes.
The presidential endorsement ban marks just the second time since 1976 that the Washington Post hasn’t endorsed a presidential candidate. (In 1988, the paper’s editorial board provided readers with a detailed explanation on why it wouldn’t endorse either candidate. A past Washington Post publisher also refused for the paper to endorse presidential candidates during a stretch in the 1930s and ’40s.) The paper’s editorial board, however, has published endorsements this year in some local congressional races, casting doubt on the official explanation from publisher and Bezos himself that endorsements “create a perception of bias.”
Either way, many furious readers have voted with their wallets, with NPR reporting on Monday that more than 200,000 subscribers—or at least 8% of the paper’s paying members—have canceled their memberships in just the handful of days since the Washington Post’s announcement. That number, however, would do little to impact Bezos’s thinking, Berman predicted.
“That is so not a problem for him,” Berman said. “The problem is if he endorses Kamala Harris and Trump wins, his Blue Origin business is fucked.”
Berman spent more than 14 years at Amazon in top PR roles, including nearly a decade as the head of communications for the entire company. Early in his career, he helped run campaigns for congressional candidates.
Berman, like many observers, insisted that it would be a lot easier to believe that Bezos is being fully transparent if the decision not to endorse had been made and announced months or even years ago. Bezos said he regretted the timing of the decision, but chalked it up to mere “inadequate planning, and not some intentional strategy.”
“You keep coming back to the timing, and it just opens up all the other speculative avenues that let your brain wander,” the former Bezos advisor said.
Berman added that whether the decision was fully Bezos’s or not, it was “cowardly.”
“If you just want to do straight news, get rid of the editorial boards,” he said. “But don’t pick and choose your editorial battles that you decide you want to fight. I think it’s BS. Part of what makes the press free is the ability to take a point of view. I just don’t think you can have it both ways.”