I'm surprised the Washington Post doesn't include any disclaimers regarding their ownership by Bezos in their coverage of Amazon.
Whats surprising, is that it took something so tech-related to make you notice!
I see posts sometimes where they write about how great X is and then have a disclaimer of (we're owned by creators of X) as if that was good enough. I just think if you have a conflict of interest, unless the value of the news is significant, writing about X should be avoided altogether especially if it's heavy on speculation, analysis or opinion.
If you're an expert in a certain area, it's quite likely that it's because it's part of your job. There aren't that many people who are both impartial and knowledgeable.
If the story was about American Airlines' employee compensation practices, and it was published by the Air Line Pilots Association, then the same conflict would arise. But if the story is about aviation in general, then the conflict goes away and the pilot is a good source of expert knowledge.
Well, not exactly, just by a company with the same majority owner.
This example is not at all like the situation with Jeff Bezo, Amazon, and The Washington Post. In situations like this, there is the perception (and often the reality) that employees of the media organization would self-censor and not write anything too negative about a company owned by someone that can fire them (or indirectly hinder their careers).
It's a little trickier than that: Not covering something also can be beneficial. For example, what if the Washington Post omitted coverage of bad service at Amazon?