# data[].attributes.body
The story is framed as a major event in the ongoing regulatory battle between Washington and Big Tech. It focuses on the legal and economic impact (central to its business, settlement shows a continued push by the Republican-led F.T.C.), providing background on the antitrust case and FTC leadership.

# data[].attributes.body
CNN also exhibits high V.I.A. scores due to its structural integrity and reliance on official documentation.

# data[].attributes.body
For this project, I will be comparing the New York Times and Cable News Network (CNN). The New York Times is widely recognized as a "newspaper of record," known for its in-depth, institutional, and globally focused reporting across print and digital platforms. CNN, on the other hand, operates as a multinational news channel that pioneered 24-hour cable news coverage, emphasizing timeliness and a strong visual presence. I will be analyzing the coverage of the Amazon story regarding its $2.5 billion settlement with the Federal Trade Commission, which was reported on September 25, 2025. This comparative analysis will utilize the Verification, Independence, and Accountability (V.I.A.) framework, alongside an examination of framing, news determinants, and other journalistic factors.

# data[].attributes.body
The New York Times is an American company based in New York City and is renowned as a newspaper of record for its in-depth, investigative reporting on national and international politics, business, and culture; it publishes daily in print and maintains a constantly updated digital platform that emphasizes analysis, having won over 135 Pulitzer Prizes and reporting an estimated 11.66 million readers and $2.59 billion in total revenue.

# data[].attributes.body
CNN is an American company headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, and is recognized as a pioneer of 24-hour cable news, specializing in breaking news, live coverage, and political discussion across its vast global network; its core strength is real-time, continuous reporting on television and online, having gained fame for coverage like the Gulf War (1991) and reporting an estimated 200 million readers and $1.8 billion in total revenue.

# data[].attributes.body
My focus on this project is to analyze the contrasting coverage of the Amazon Prime settlement story by two of the world's most respected news outlets: NYT and CNN. Given that NYT is known for its in-depth investigative reporting, and CNN excels at breaking news and live coverage, examining their reporting on the same high-profile event offers a unique academic opportunity.

Specifically, I plan to compare how each publication framed the story, looking at whether they emphasized consumer deception, regulatory action, or corporate response. I will also examine the language used, the types of people interviewed, or sources cited, and the overall style of their reporting to see how these fundamental differences shape the public narrative surrounding a major corporate legal dispute.

I'm excited to delve into these two respected publications and see how their distinct journalistic priorities manifest in their output.

# data[].attributes.body
Both outlets exhibit high V.I.A. scores due to their structural integrity and reliance on official documentation, with The New York Times showing slightly higher transparency in its sourcing.

# data[].attributes.body
Organization Process

High Transparency: Known for extensive fact-checking and multiple editor review stages. Emphasizes discipline of verification, seeking multiple forms of evidence, and correcting errors openly.

# data[].attributes.body
High Credibility: A large newsroom with resources for verification. CNN generally relies on named sources, official documents, and on-the-ground reporting. They prioritize timeliness which can sometimes risk accuracy, but they have a mechanism for corrections.

# data[].attributes.body
Amazon agreed to pay up to $2.5 billion to settle claims that it tricked tens of millions of people into signing up for its Prime membership program, and then made it hard for customers to cancel when they wanted out.

# data[].attributes.body
Amazon to pay a historic $2.5 billion settlement with the Federal Trade Commission... ending a two-year dispute over allegations the company tricked consumers into signing up for its Prime subscription service and then made it hard to cancel.

# data[].attributes.body
Settlement Figures: ($1B civil penalty, $1-1.5B customer payouts) from the FTC.

Official Statements: FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson (on Fox Business), Amazon Spokesman Mark Blafkin (direct quote).

Expert Context: Josh Lowitz (Consumer Intelligence Research Partners), Bill Kovacic (Former FTC Chair).

Anonymous Insight: "Two people familiar with the talks" (for context on negotiations and employee testimony).

Legal Evidence: Documentation of dark patterns (the orange 'Get FREE Same-Day Delivery' button).

# data[].attributes.body
Settlement Figures: ($1B civil penalty, $1.5B refunds to 35M customers) cited from the FTC press release.

Official Statements: FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson (quote emphasizes "monumental win"), Amazon Spokesperson Mark Blafkin (direct quote).

Expert Context: Zak Stambor (E-marketer analyst), Lina Khan (Former FTC Chair) via social media post.

Legal Evidence: FTC details on prohibited practices (no "No, I don’t want Free Shipping" button).

# data[].attributes.body
Highest Credibility: Diverse sources (legal documents, government officials, corporate statements, external experts, and vetted anonymous sources). The inclusion of a former FTC Chair provides deep institutional memory and analysis.

# data[].attributes.body
High Credibility: Diverse and official sources (legal documents, government officials, corporate statements, and industry analysts). The inclusion of Lina Khan's social media post is a slight reduction in formality/source formality compared to NYT's direct quotes.

# data[].attributes.body
Authors Karen Weise and Cecilia Kang are staff reporters with no apparent financial or political ties to the parties in the dispute.

# data[].attributes.body
Author Jordan Valinsky is a CNN Business writer, structurally independent of Amazon/FTC. His background is covering consumer brands and retail.

# data[].attributes.body
Intellectual Independence is High. Presents claims (FTC's dark patterns), Amazon's response (denial of wrongdoing, commitment to customer focus), and external critiques from both sides of the issue (expert who says the payment is a "good plan" vs. activist who says it's a "meager check").

# data[].attributes.body
Moderate/High. Presents the FTC's strong claims and Amazon's denial of wrongdoing. The use of quotes, however, leans toward celebrating the FTC's "monumental win" and includes a strong activist critique from Lina Khan that the fine is a drop in the bucket, providing less space for Amazon's neutral perspective.

# data[].attributes.body
The New York Times Company is publicly traded but controlled by the Ochs-Sulzberger family via a dual-class share structure, intended to protect editorial independence. Primary revenue is from subscriptions, which insulates editorial decisions from major advertisers like Amazon.

# data[].attributes.body
CNN is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD), a major publicly traded media conglomerate. Primary revenue is from cable subscription fees and advertising. Its editorial independence is generally protected, though its status within a large corporation can create potential, albeit indirect, conflicts of interest.

# data[].attributes.body
Full bylines for Karen Weise and Cecilia Kang are provided, along with their beats (Amazon/Microsoft, technology/regulatory policy) and their reporting locations. The print version is fully cited with headline and section.

# data[].attributes.body
Byline for Jordan Valinsky is provided, along with a timestamp for the last update. CNN's online platform typically provides links or accessible bios for its staff.

# data[].attributes.body
High Transparency. Has a formal, public Corrections policy and section in both print and online, viewed as a discipline of journalism. The organization's standards are clear and accessible, often with an internal public editor or a strong standards editor role.

# data[].attributes.body
High Transparency. CNN also has an established, public process for issuing corrections and clarifications both on-air and online. The site provides contact information for submissions regarding inaccuracies.

# data[].attributes.body
Red Flags/Missing Info

The analysis is well-sourced, attributes anonymous sources correctly as people familiar with the talks, and provides full context.

# data[].attributes.body
Red Flags/Missing Info

The reporting is timely and accurate based on official statements. All key claims are supported by named officials or organizations.

# data[].attributes.body
The story is framed as a dramatic win for the public over corporate deception. It uses highly charged language (historic, tricked consumers) and focuses on the FTC Chairman's triumphant quote and the activist Lina Khan's critique that the fine is insufficient, creating a higher sense of immediate conflict and consumer harm.

# data[].attributes.body
Importance: This story sets a major precedent in digital consumer law, marking the FTC's most aggressive action yet against 'dark patterns' (deceptive online design). The outcome establishes a new legal standard for how subscription services must design their sign-up and cancellation processes, forcing a critical shift in how technology companies treat consumers and consent.

Relevance: The story directly addresses a confusing experience, the use of 'subscription traps' cancellation methods common across the entire digital economy (not just Amazon). The public interest lies in the fact that the legal victory and settlement terms may soon force dozens of other major companies to simplify their own user interfaces, making it easier and fairer for every digital consumer to manage their recurring charges.

Magnitude: The sheer size of the penalty ($2.5 billion) and the number of people affected (tens of millions of Prime customers/an estimated 197 million US customers).

Prominence: Involves two of the most powerful entities in the world: Amazon (a ubiquitous consumer and business giant) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (a powerful government regulator).

Conflict: The story is centered on a lawsuit and a trial, a direct conflict between the government and a corporation with the narrative revolving around trickery (dark patterns) and consumer struggle ("hard for customers to cancel).

Impact: The practices directly impact the daily lives and wallets of nearly 200 million Prime users in the United States, affecting their subscriptions and the core mechanism of their online shopping.

Timeliness: The settlement was announced days into a jury trial that had just begun, making it the most current update on a high-stakes legal proceeding.

# data[].attributes.body
Highly Reliable: Exceptional verification due to adherence to professional standards, use of diverse, authoritative sources, and a structurally independent, subscription-driven revenue model. Provides in-depth institutional context and a balanced intellectual presentation.

# data[].attributes.body
Highly Reliable. Strong adherence to professional standards, reliance on official public statements and press releases, and clear accountability mechanisms. While the framing is slightly more focused on conflict and consumer drama, the underlying facts and evidence are authoritative.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a significant matter of concern in the digital age, representing a violation of user trust and informed consent.

Ethical Concern: The debate is over corporate ethics and user manipulation. Amazon used deceptive user interface design to steer customers into an unwanted financial commitment, raising questions about corporate responsibility.

Regulatory Concern: The action highlights the role of the FTC in using consumer protection law to regulate tech platforms, which is a growing area of government focus globally.

Economic Concern: The settlement, while large, is described by activists as a 'drop in the bucket' compared to the company's $44 billion in annual subscription revenue, raising the concern that such fines may be insufficient to deter wealthy corporations from profiting off of deceptive practices.

# data[].attributes.body
NYT Bias

Institutional/Policy Frame (Bias towards government and business analysis).

The NYT leads with the legal significance (The settlement is one of the largest in the history of the Federal Trade Commission.). The body focuses on the FTC's power (Andrew Ferguson, Lina Khan), the broader antitrust case, and quotes former FTC officials (Bill Kovacic). The frame is regulation vs. corporation.

The value proposition is insight and authority. Its bias leans toward the institutional view, trusting that the system of regulation (the FTC) functions and that analysis of that function is the most important part of the story.

CNN Bias

Consumer/Drama Frame (Bias towards immediate action and emotional resonance).

CNN leads with the historic consumer victory (Amazon to pay historic $2.5 billion settlement for allegedly tricking customers.). The frame is victim vs. villain, centering the narrative on the consumer's experience and the size of the penalty.

The value proposition is engagement and emotion. Its bias leans toward conflict and immediate consumer interest, presenting the story as a victory for the 'little guy against the corporate behemoth.