Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That story was basically a plant from Amazon Evidence? > Quillette is absolutely not a high quality news source Really? I find their articles to be written well. They are respectful and balanced in their tone, and provide a lot of evidence for their points. Are you sure you don't just disagree with their centrist perspective? You've not actually offered any critique of this article.
Quillette does not feature a centrist perspective. See Media Bias Fact Check’s overview, in which they’re considered “Right” and to feature pseudoscience and poor reporting [1]. Also see the Wikipedia page on Media Bias Fact Check for citations to show that they’re reputable [2]. See also AllSides' overview, in which they’re considered to “lean right” [3]. [1] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/quillette/ [2] https://en.…
> The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."
> The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."
I read through the Media Bias Fact check article on Quillette and it makes bold claims about Quillette having poor sourcing or featuring pseudoscience but it provides weak or cherry-picked examples from a much larger body of published articles. For example, it mentions 'hereditarianism' as pseudoscientific, even though there is peer-reviewed published research supporting it that is referenced in the Quillette article they are critiquing. It also tries to discredit Quillette based on association - it mentions a couple people who have written articles on Quillette and discusses _their_ reputation, rather than directly factually refuting specific points.
If anything, this write-up on Media Bias Fact Check is itself super biased.
AllSides is more reputable but they have also rated Quillette as Center for long periods of time previously. AllSides also mentions this about Quillette alongside their current "lean right" rating:
> Worth noting: some on the team thought Quillette deserved a Center or Lean Left media bias rating. This is because Quillette features classically liberal arguments, but classically liberal ideas are now more commonly associated with the Right. Our confidence rating for Quillette's media bias rating is "Initial or Low."
Also, AllSides's methodology is US-centric - which is different from centrism more broadly.
> The AllSides Media Bias RatingTM reflects the average judgment of the American people. We don't use a convoluted mathematical or artificial intelligence model, but instead have regular people representing the broad spectrum of Americans blindly rate the bias of articles. That produces a fair, verifiable bias rating.
Centrism also means neutral or truth-seeking to some people, whereas to others it refers to a relative position on a political spectrum. I find Quillette to be generally centrist in that it is neutral/truth-seeking because they are willing to take controversial positions and discuss them logically, in depth, with substantial evidence. By and large, Quillette features high quality articles and significant sourcing. No journalistic outlet is perfect and it wouldn't take me long to pull out examples in the NYT, WaPo, WSJ, or other big publications to try and paint a negative image of them as Media Bias Fact Check did.
And to get back on point, no one has refuted what this particular article claims. Amazon has higher pay, better benefits, and better conditions than other warehouse jobs. There is even a comment in this very HN discussion from an Amazon warehouse worker that says "I'm part of the career choice program which pays for 95% of my college tuition, fees, and books for an IT program (which I chose)." And this isn't the only comment in this discussion from an Amazon warehouse worker. If there are claims otherwise, that other warehouse jobs are better, name them and cite evidence.