I don't really know what the point you're trying to make is? All the price cut information is from a press release[1] that was reported on by NYT, CNN, MSNBC, WSJ, amongst others.
You know exactly the point he's trying to make, since you made a counterargument to that point. The point is obviously that there is a conflict-of-interest when a publication reports on its owner's business activities. Not much to argue about it really. The conflict-of-interest is by definition.
"Correct?" I'm sure any numbers in it are accurate. But these stories are essentially press releases.
> “The two companies will together pursue the vision of making Whole Foods Market’s high-quality, natural and organic food affordable for everyone,” they said in a joint statement. “Whole Foods Market will offer lower prices starting Monday on a selection of best-selling grocery staples across its stores, with more to come.”
and
> “Everybody should be able to eat Whole Foods Market quality — we will lower prices without compromising Whole Foods Market’s long-held commitment to the highest standards,” Jeff Wilke, chief executive of Amazon Worldwide Consumer, said in a statement. “There is significant work and opportunity ahead, and we’re thrilled to get started.”
Some hard-hitting journalism here, especially considering the first thing Amazon is doing is leveraging their juggernaut status to lower prices and undercut competitors. Sure, we'll see "blistering competition" now, but when these other businesses falter and only Amazon is left standing, there won't be any news stories trumpeting the fact. Amazon is being particularly serious about PR on thsi one since they've gone so deep into anti-trust territory, and because they know that the false signifier of price that has been used in anti-trust cases for the last few decades is their shield against claims that they're a monopoly.
