Did I miss out on some additional fallout after the article was initially published? I don't see why they're addressing this two months later.
Apparently, that's the amount of time you need to polish a turd before it stops smelling.
What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon
41–50 of 270 posts
Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon
#42> What The New York Times Didn’t Tell You
Am I the only one tired of click-bait titles that don't tell you anything about the article? Had to read the comments here to understand what the article was about and decide if it was worth reading.
All it takes is 4 extra words to give the title context:
> What The New York Times Didn’t Tell You [about working at Amazon]
Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'm not arguing that! I'm just laughing while the kettle calls the pot black. And not just this post, half this thread is this stuff.
Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon
#44The headline seems very click-baitish and uninformative. Can we be more specific? The New York Times doesn't tell me a lot of things.
Jay Carney Rebuts New York Times Article About Amazon's Work Culture, perhaps?
Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon
#45There are several shockingly inappropriate things in this article. In particular, the PR person at Amazon is saying that they would have shared employee's personal records (including evaluations) as well as other employee's termination conditions (which I consider unrelated to their quotes). Amazon: what Carney just posted was very inappropriate. I am completely amazed you did this (assuming it was done with approval…
> In particular, the PR person at Amazon is saying that they would have shared employee's personal records (including evaluations) as well as other employee's termination conditions (which I consider unrelated to their quotes).
I assume from the article this meant including the consent of the employee in question, given that they were part of the article. It does seem a little odd though.
Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon
#46There are several shockingly inappropriate things in this article. In particular, the PR person at Amazon is saying that they would have shared employee's personal records (including evaluations) as well as other employee's termination conditions (which I consider unrelated to their quotes). Amazon: what Carney just posted was very inappropriate. I am completely amazed you did this (assuming it was done with approval…
Devil's Advocate here:
The people named in the article and refuted by Amazon put their personal story a public story.
If someone "slanders" a business it can't reply with evidence? Must the company say it is a personal matter that we can't disclose, which reads they are guilty and don't want the truth to come out?
End of Devil's Advocate
Seems like they were making a statement of if you talk will will fully disclose our information to refute what you said. I think this was hurting Amazon so much that they are willing to payout the "out of court settlement" and "set the record straight."
Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon
#47I recently quit Amazon. I don't doubt that New York Times purposely misrepresented or omitted facts to make this story. Their stories tend to be very agenda driven and the facts tend to be subservient to the narrative, a policy which is deemed acceptable because it "starts a conversation" or the story is "probably true for someone". This is typical of the left wing. However, I did in fact have an absolutely awful exp…
In a lot of ways Amazon reminds me of Wal-mart, both from the market space they occupy and how terribly they treat employees. I think this is really a byproduct of chasing after low costs without other substantial service improvements. At least with Uber you get a legitimately better hailing and payment experience, not just being cheaper.
Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You don't think it's possible the former employee had an agenda or axe to grind after his dismissal?
People often act out when they are emotionally upset, which the former Amazon employee clearly was.
This whole HN thread is kind of amazing -- it's filled with ad hominem attacks against Carney because of his history in politics.
Very few of the articles actually addressed Carney's main idea: the primary source from the NYT had a possible agenda/bias. The NYT reporters knew that, but did not report it. They also misled the Amazon people about their objective, pitching it differently and hiding facts that would have undercut their point.
It seems like Carney presented a lot of facts. If you dispute the facts in the article, or think Carney flat-out made up the email he quotes at length (or the reason for dismissal), then you are at least addressing the content of what he says.
granted, i have no idea what his political history is, as I'd never heard his name before.
Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon
#49Earlier 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.
It's never easy to sue a major organization.
Re: What The New York Times Didn’t Say About Amazon
#50There are several shockingly inappropriate things in this article. In particular, the PR person at Amazon is saying that they would have shared employee's personal records (including evaluations) as well as other employee's termination conditions (which I consider unrelated to their quotes). Amazon: what Carney just posted was very inappropriate. I am completely amazed you did this (assuming it was done with approval…
Also inexcusable that Carney's bio is not the first sentence in the post.
Would it not work for Amazon to come out with more of a "Look, it's a difficult business and our folks work incredibly hard. Sometimes it might get a little out of hand. We want to make sure all of our employees are healthy and treated with respect while fulfilling Amazon's mission of delighting customers around the world. We are constantly looking at our practices and the work environment at Amazon and will continue making improvements as we see fit. We don't think the environment portrayed by the Times article is accurate but it has prompted us to work even harder to make Amazon the best place to work."