4 ms·

I agree with you that NYTimes piece is largely anecdotal but I will give my reasons for not believing a SVP of Amazon PR. 1. Personal attach on a former employ

I agree with you that NYTimes piece is largely anecdotal but I will give my reasons for not believing a SVP of Amazon PR. 1. Personal attach on a former employee as the head of public relation for a multi-billion corporation from a personal blog seems cowardly. Did he give Olson a chance to respond? Is there extenuating circumstances? How did Amazon carry out the investigation? Who knew what when? He accused NYTimes lapses in journalistic standard; he isn't even pretending there is any standard. 2. His attack on reporters is unconvincing. His rhetorical questions sound conniving. The reporters might not have asked those exact questions but they must have examined the named sources' credibility and employment history. Amazon might have refused to give details about Olson's termination, ironically on employee's privacy concern, and then itself divulges specifics, though I am sure after being cleared by their legal department. Noticed that Carney went into hyperboles here rather than stating any facts. A few sentences describing Amazon's interaction with reporters would go a long way here. But no, nothing. 3. His refutation of other three named sources amounts to verbal parsing. Some parts of the review are good so no parts can be called bad. Written review is good so no verbal review can be abusive. No direct requirement so everything is employee's fault and they deserve everything they get. It is almost offensive to read this part. If this is the best Amazon can come up with, it must be bad. 4. Cheery picking Amazon's interaction with NYTimes' reporter. Select publication of correspondence and one-sided characterization of interaction is sly. Make public all correspondence, with proper permission, so we can get a full picture. Fundementall Carney is a former reporter and whitehouse spokesman who is now attacking former employees in behalf of a giant corporation with enormous resources on personal blog. He is committing every bad act he accuses NYTimes of and a lot more. It is debatable whether NYTimes followed the ideal journalistic standards but it is clear Carney follows none here.

jessriedel 11y ago
With regard to #1, I don't much care how cowardly Carney is. The Times based an anecdotal article largely on the impressions of someone who is clearly suspect. Not informing the reader about it is unacceptable. I guess I agree with #2, except that the alternative scenario -- that the reporters based their piece on an employee who they didn't know had an axe to grind -- just makes them incompetent/negligent rather than malicious. I agree with #3, and honestly just ignored the relevant section of Carney's post for exactly the reasons you give. I disagree with #4. I'd love to see the entire correspondence process too, but I can't imagine a reasonable scenario where the reporters aren't dishonest about their intentions. I think being willing to betray one's subject with bald-face lies completely destroys a journalist's credibility, and it doesn't matter how evil their subject is, or if they call it investigative reporting. I'm sure the reporters felt they were justified, or only bent the truth rather than lying, or whatever. But it's exactly that ability to self deceive that makes them untrustworthy writers.

jessriedel 11y ago

With regard to #1, I don't much care how cowardly Carney is. The Times based an anecdotal article largely on the impressions of someone who is clearly suspect. Not informing the reader about it is unacceptable. I guess I agree with #2, except that the alternative scenario -- that the reporters based their piece on an employee who they didn't know had an axe to grind -- just makes them incompetent/negligent rather than malicious. I agree with #3, and honestly just ignored the relevant section of Carney's post for exactly the reasons you give. I disagree with #4. I'd love to see the entire correspondence process too, but I can't imagine a reasonable scenario where the reporters aren't dishonest about their intentions. I think being willing to betray one's subject with bald-face lies completely destroys a journalist's credibility, and it doesn't matter how evil their subject is, or if they call it investigative reporting. I'm sure the reporters felt they were justified, or only bent the truth rather than lying, or whatever. But it's exactly that ability to self deceive that makes them untrustworthy writers.