Every newspaper, every news magazine has had this same tension between the advertising department and the content department. Every advertiser should understand that; every editor certainly does. This isn't new.
If we do (or are) then all a large corporation has to do to stifle most MSM criticism is to push enough money into advertising with those platforms. Of course we already have cases in this area [1], but hopefully the proposition as a whole sounds as ridiculous to you as it does to me.
[1] - https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/aug/30/new-ameri...
However, the solution that was well developed in the 20th century, the "iron curtain" between the advertising and news departments of a publication, worked reasonably well (with editors being put into difficult positions periodically, though). Up until, that is, advertising dollars for news publications dried up almost entirely, creating an existential threat to the news organization.
Now, we are back in the pre-20th century world, where every publication is owned and published by someone with a particular viewpoint.
yes, he might get even more retaliation. but we should care about his message here, that Amazon control the news.
NYT could have reported that there is no longer Amazon ads on the magazine that told truths about them, like it used to have before. without ever receiving the "leak".
the "leak" just stated the obvious that everyone could see anyway.
Perhaps as a something to learn from? Foer appears to have let his feelings of outrage get the better of him, and went off half-cocked with a pointless and ill-advised gesture that only benefitted his opponents.
I think he got what he wanted.
Some people are OK giving up a little comfort for a better world, you know?