

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos speaks during an event in June 2014. (Photo: David Ryder/Getty Images)
Media criticism sometimes involves reading between the lines, assessing the layered meanings of journalistic rhetoric, or considering what's left unsaid in a given conversation. But we shouldn't be numb to all the times media problems hit you like a sock in the jaw.
That was the case when readers opened the Washington Post online recently to find a full page "native" ad--that's the kind designed to look like news--from Amazon (Jacobin, 5/27/21). Whose owner Jeff Bezos owns the Post and soon MGM (Washington Post, 5/26/21), among much else.
Blended in with the Post's banner and "Democracy Dies in Darkness" tagline, readers got text about how Amazon supports a raise in the federal minimum wage and has been paying its workers $15 an hour since 2018. A big picture showed an African-American employee and her child talking about how Amazon's generosity is allowing them to move to a bigger home.
Never mind that, as many could tell you, the company was dragged kicking and screaming to that wage increase (Jacobin, 10/2/18); that they continue to fund groups that strenuously oppose a $15 minimum wage (Jacobin, 5/27/21), like the US Chamber of Commerce; that they have vigorously and vehemently opposed union organizing (New York Times, 3/16/21)--and that no wage can justify the dangerous and degrading conditions Amazon is reported to subject many of its workers to (Intercept, 3/25/21).
Just as it was selling Post readers on the notion that it's lifting folks to a better life, Amazon was being cited by OSHA for a rate of serious workplace injuries nearly double that at other employers (CNBC, 6/1/21). A front-page, "truthy-looking" ad about corporate benevolence is surely designed to deflect from such troubling realities.
It didn't prevent the paper (6/1/21) from reporting on the OSHA findings, though that story contained another kind of weirdness we've come to take for granted: a summary statement that "Amazon declined to make any executives available for interviews on its workplace injury data."
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Media criticism sometimes involves reading between the lines, assessing the layered meanings of journalistic rhetoric, or considering what's left unsaid in a given conversation. But we shouldn't be numb to all the times media problems hit you like a sock in the jaw.
That was the case when readers opened the Washington Post online recently to find a full page "native" ad--that's the kind designed to look like news--from Amazon (Jacobin, 5/27/21). Whose owner Jeff Bezos owns the Post and soon MGM (Washington Post, 5/26/21), among much else.
Blended in with the Post's banner and "Democracy Dies in Darkness" tagline, readers got text about how Amazon supports a raise in the federal minimum wage and has been paying its workers $15 an hour since 2018. A big picture showed an African-American employee and her child talking about how Amazon's generosity is allowing them to move to a bigger home.
Never mind that, as many could tell you, the company was dragged kicking and screaming to that wage increase (Jacobin, 10/2/18); that they continue to fund groups that strenuously oppose a $15 minimum wage (Jacobin, 5/27/21), like the US Chamber of Commerce; that they have vigorously and vehemently opposed union organizing (New York Times, 3/16/21)--and that no wage can justify the dangerous and degrading conditions Amazon is reported to subject many of its workers to (Intercept, 3/25/21).
Just as it was selling Post readers on the notion that it's lifting folks to a better life, Amazon was being cited by OSHA for a rate of serious workplace injuries nearly double that at other employers (CNBC, 6/1/21). A front-page, "truthy-looking" ad about corporate benevolence is surely designed to deflect from such troubling realities.
It didn't prevent the paper (6/1/21) from reporting on the OSHA findings, though that story contained another kind of weirdness we've come to take for granted: a summary statement that "Amazon declined to make any executives available for interviews on its workplace injury data."
Media criticism sometimes involves reading between the lines, assessing the layered meanings of journalistic rhetoric, or considering what's left unsaid in a given conversation. But we shouldn't be numb to all the times media problems hit you like a sock in the jaw.
That was the case when readers opened the Washington Post online recently to find a full page "native" ad--that's the kind designed to look like news--from Amazon (Jacobin, 5/27/21). Whose owner Jeff Bezos owns the Post and soon MGM (Washington Post, 5/26/21), among much else.
Blended in with the Post's banner and "Democracy Dies in Darkness" tagline, readers got text about how Amazon supports a raise in the federal minimum wage and has been paying its workers $15 an hour since 2018. A big picture showed an African-American employee and her child talking about how Amazon's generosity is allowing them to move to a bigger home.
Never mind that, as many could tell you, the company was dragged kicking and screaming to that wage increase (Jacobin, 10/2/18); that they continue to fund groups that strenuously oppose a $15 minimum wage (Jacobin, 5/27/21), like the US Chamber of Commerce; that they have vigorously and vehemently opposed union organizing (New York Times, 3/16/21)--and that no wage can justify the dangerous and degrading conditions Amazon is reported to subject many of its workers to (Intercept, 3/25/21).
Just as it was selling Post readers on the notion that it's lifting folks to a better life, Amazon was being cited by OSHA for a rate of serious workplace injuries nearly double that at other employers (CNBC, 6/1/21). A front-page, "truthy-looking" ad about corporate benevolence is surely designed to deflect from such troubling realities.
It didn't prevent the paper (6/1/21) from reporting on the OSHA findings, though that story contained another kind of weirdness we've come to take for granted: a summary statement that "Amazon declined to make any executives available for interviews on its workplace injury data."