What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon • Hacker News Board

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#31

Post by cryoshon » Mon, Oct 19, 2015, 3:10 PM UTC

tgb wrote: post #27

cryoshon wrote: post #20

"Senior Vice President for Global Corporate Affairs at Amazon. Previously, he served as White House Press Secretary and spent 20 years as a reporter for TIME." A spin doctor doing his best to protect the people that pay him. Pay this article no mind; unrelated assaults on a source's character have no bearing on already established facts.

Do you know the meaning of the word "hypocrisy"? Your comment almost had me laugh out loud.

Consider that the source I was mentioning had no positive gain associated with going to bat against Amazon in the original NYT story, and Jay Carney, as PR-guy, has a huge incentive (keeping his job) to go to bat for Amazon.

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#32

Post by sageabilly » Mon, Oct 19, 2015, 3:11 PM UTC

whatok wrote: post #7

wittekm wrote: post #3

Interesting note: the hiring of Jay Carney (Feb 26, 2015) coincides exactly with this article ("We were in regular communication with Ms. Kantor from February through the publication date in mid-August"). I wonder if such a high-visibility PR hire came about /because/ of this article?

I'm sure it would have been a multi-month process to hire for a position like Carney's so it likely would have started well before that February date.

Interesting speculation by the original commenter, however, as we can imagine that the NYT likely shopped the idea for the article to Amazon long before Ms. Kantor was originally in contact with Amazon. So perhaps the timeline went NYT shops idea for article with Amazon -> Amazon realizes they need a head of PR and starts looking -> Ms. Kantor reaches out to begin discussions with Amazon right around the same time Carney is hired

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#33

Post by vkou » Mon, Oct 19, 2015, 3:11 PM UTC

whatok wrote: post #17

chishaku wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. How do we properly discern between professional bullshitters?

I would probably have to side with Amazon's account since it would be pretty easy for the person who resigned to sue for libel if it were not true. Don't think Amazon would want to expose themselves like that.

Why on Earth would anyone want to sue their former employer? Libel or not, that's the fastest way to kill your career.

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#34

Post by aet » Mon, Oct 19, 2015, 3:14 PM UTC

forgottenpass wrote: post #16

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #8

While selective storytelling has been a staple of traditional news media for ages, this article does tempt me to ask: why Amazon? Of all the workaholic culture tech companies of the last 20 years, why did the New York Times choose to center the exposé on Amazon.com? My entirely baseless suspicion is that unlike many other tech companies, Amazon is a direct competitor in its ability to drive information to their custo…

The motivation you speculate on seems, uh, awfully complicated compared to "Newspaper airs dirty laundry of Fortune 29 company."

Jeff Bezos owns the Washington Post (edited: Not Amazon, but Bezos owns WP)

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#35

Post by petegrif » Mon, Oct 19, 2015, 3:15 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #29

cjbprime wrote: post #22

> Here’s what the story didn’t tell you about Mr. Olson: his brief tenure at Amazon ended after an investigation revealed he had attempted to defraud vendors and conceal it by falsifying business records. When confronted with the evidence, he admitted it and resigned immediately. Together with the inappropriate disclosure of performance reviews, this statement just makes me think that Amazon probably has a culture of…

Let's assume both Amazon and Carney are evil. Do you think it was acceptable for the Times to not disclose the context of Olson's dismissal?

I don't know it if would have been appropriate for the Times to disclose the context of Olson's dismissal at all, it wasn't after all the point of the article - that was work conditions at Amazon rather than the transgressions of Olsen. But I think it was completely unacceptable for them to take his disclosures at face value given such a context.

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#36

Post by detaro » Mon, Oct 19, 2015, 3:16 PM UTC

forgottenpass wrote: post #16

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #8

While selective storytelling has been a staple of traditional news media for ages, this article does tempt me to ask: why Amazon? Of all the workaholic culture tech companies of the last 20 years, why did the New York Times choose to center the exposé on Amazon.com? My entirely baseless suspicion is that unlike many other tech companies, Amazon is a direct competitor in its ability to drive information to their custo…

The motivation you speculate on seems, uh, awfully complicated compared to "Newspaper airs dirty laundry of Fortune 29 company."

That in addition already has been heavily criticized for it's treatment of (warehouse) workers before, giving an excellent trend to build upon.

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#37

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 19, 2015, 3:16 PM UTC

cjbprime wrote: post #22

> Here’s what the story didn’t tell you about Mr. Olson: his brief tenure at Amazon ended after an investigation revealed he had attempted to defraud vendors and conceal it by falsifying business records. When confronted with the evidence, he admitted it and resigned immediately. Together with the inappropriate disclosure of performance reviews, this statement just makes me think that Amazon probably has a culture of…

[deleted]

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#38

Post by bernardom » Mon, Oct 19, 2015, 3:16 PM UTC

For someone who had to stand at the White House podium for years, it's got to be gratifying to get a shot back at the media for once.

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#39

Post by FussyZeus » Mon, Oct 19, 2015, 3:17 PM UTC

Just weighing in on the Olson thing: Why is it considered unprofessional or inappropriate for a company rep to speak openly about the illegal/unethical practices of now former employees? Isn't that a good thing to hear about that a company you do business with is culling the ranks of those stealing from it, or whatever they happen to be doing?

If he admitted it and resigned over it, sounds like a pretty cut and dried case that he did it. Screw his reputation, and screw him. Maybe if this stuff was made public more often so that misbehaving executives got more punishment than a tiny ass fine and a huge sum of money, we'd have less of a crony-capitalist system going on these days.

Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon

#40

Post by whatok » Mon, Oct 19, 2015, 3:19 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #33

whatok wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would probably have to side with Amazon's account since it would be pretty easy for the person who resigned to sue for libel if it were not true. Don't think Amazon would want to expose themselves like that.

Why on Earth would anyone want to sue their former employer? Libel or not, that's the fastest way to kill your career.

I can't imagine a corporate legal team on Earth that would advise someone to publish something libelous because they expected a former employee to not sue over it.