It is not a matter of being "supportive", so much as a way for them to have a hand at managing the narrative which the discussion will take and proactively lampshading upcoming arguments

How is this article "actually supportive" of Amazon/Bezos?

I really hope you're not going to claim because they put in responses from an Amazon spokesperson that makes the whole article pro-Amazon.

I'd say it wouldn't even be required for all bad press to be somehow "actually supportive". If they were to selectively choose to publish articles that are in no way supportive when it doesn't matter so much to them, but still bury any articles that they fear would meaningfully harm them it's still serving Bezos/Amazon and allowing the relatively "harmless" articles helps to insulate them from accusations that their reporting is dictated by what's acceptable to Amazon/Bezos.

Being able to choose your bad press is just about as good as preventing all of it, and if your goal is trick people into thinking you aren't manipulating what gets published, it's even better than censoring every negative article.