5 ms·

Sorry, all the nitpicking about small points in an article don't mean nearly as much to me as the dozen or so people I've known who's been miserable working the

by bbarn 11y ago

Sorry, all the nitpicking about small points in an article don't mean nearly as much to me as the dozen or so people I've known who's been miserable working there for low pay, and told me so personally. Embrace the culture you have, or fix it, but stop denying it exists, Amazon.

xvf33 11y ago
Same here. I know 2 people who went there, both after short startup stints after college. They both lasted under 2 years and are now at Mozilla and Facebook and would never go back. So many awful stories...
- caseysoftware 11y ago
  None of that absolves the NYT from checking sources and attempting to determine the credibility. This is journalistic malpractice. If we excuse a "news" organization from fact checking because "well, I've heard stories along those lines" we're screwed.. because where will most people hear those stories? The same organizations.
  - awakeasleep 11y ago
    Whether the statements are true or not is what the journalists should care about, and what they did, in this article. You’ll notice that Carney never disputes the truth of the claims. He only attacks the character of the people who made them- or adds related but not contradictory details. Overall, side issues not actually related to the substance of the claims themselves.
    - caseysoftware 11y ago
      Personally, I suspect the claims are 100% true. The point is that "journalists" have ethical guidelines they have to follow. Failure to do so compromises themselves and their profession. It leads to the defense and promotion of "fake but accurate" articles that tell a great story but risk being just that.. stories. It's the equivalent of asking Hillary Clinton's opinion of Donald Trump. She may be 100% accurate in her assessment but she is not neutral or impartial.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - romaniv 11y ago
      Whether the statements are true or not is what the journalists should care about This is a very naive view of journalism. It is trivial to do horrible, biased reporting while printing statements that are factually true or not falsifiable. In fact, that is how most of the biased articles are constructed these days. In the age of the Internet you can't get away with outright lies. The tool of trade are mission, misrepresentation, manufactured context, selective citation, cherrypiked expert opinions and so on.
  - fluidcruft 11y ago
    You may see it that way. I didn't actually see any egregious failure of NYT "fact checking" in that victimization post spewed by Amazon PR yesterday. Just Amazon attempting a PR slight of hand. And of course Bezos owns WP, so attacking NYT credibility fits his playbook nicely.
  - cryoshon 11y ago
    Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. For the most part, mainstream media organizations are not really "checking sources" so much as presenting a coherent narrative that their advertisers want propagated. I don't doubt that the original anti-Amazon article was a hit piece that was commissioned. That doesn't make its claims false, however.
    - caseysoftware 11y ago
      If it was a commissioned hit piece, that makes it even worse. We have a "news" organization doing opposition research, calling it investigative "journalism", and then the editor defending their process and integrity without an appropriate disclosure. I sincerely hope that isn't the case. I could see the FTC getting involved if it was.
      - cryoshon 11y ago
        That's exactly the way the PR engines work these days, though. You pay for a column to advertise for your company, you get your column. You pay for a column to criticize your competitor, you get your column. You pay for columns to introduce new concepts that your company will use in the future so that the public has been primed for what you're going to put out there. All of the major companies do these things in order to stay in the public consciousness, and stay favorable. Sure, these columns will admit "alternative viewpoints" in passing to maintain their veneer of credibility, but that's no threat to their actual purpose. The editor is going to defend their process and integrity until he is fired-- and firing him would represent a concession that mistakes were made. This spat with Amazon is good for the NYT, as it proves that they're willing to "stand up for themselves", which is the perfect trait for a proxy to have when you're paying them to go after the other guy.
cryoshon 11y ago
I had heard awful stories first-hand from former employees long before this story came out as well. I'm not even in the information tech industry, yet they complained to me without prompting.
lawnchair_larry 11y ago
I don't think anybody in a tech role would say they have low pay. Many problems, but that isn't one. Edit: I meant in a tech role at Amazon. Amazon are not known for low pay.
- CaptSpify 11y ago
  You'd be surprised how low people are willing to go in a tough economy. I think the bigger issue is also that techs aren't given a fair-income, especially at places like Amazon, because of the H-1B scam. If you are young and trying to get your foot in the door, you'll put up with the low pay.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
  Considering most entry-level positions in big tech pay well but come with outrageous hours and no overtime, an accusation of low pay seems justified. I know plenty of Google engineers who recently started in the Bay Area at around $86,000. Considering the amount of time they're expected to work and the costs of living there, that's pretty pathetic for a huge company with deep pockets.
  - lbotos 11y ago
    >Entry level Position. Median salary for SF Region in 2014 was $75,900. Thats ~10k over the median for an ENTRY level position. Sure, could Google pay them more, absolutely. But I don't think 86k a year is anything to scoff at.
    - nilkn 11y ago
      Why should you expect a very technically demanding position that requires passing strenuous filters and interviews to not pay much beyond the median in the entire area across all jobs? Should doctors who've just completed their residency start at $75-85k too just because they're technically entry-level?
rdtsc 11y ago
The level of and emotional investment in denial is important, it just shows that there is a problem going on. It is a bit like when two people are accused of something, one is guilty and one is not. The one who is guilty will react more violently usually and go to extra lengths to "prove" their innocence. So in this case we see them going the "extra length" with these response articles months after the original incident.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
bkjelden 11y ago
I know multiple people who received advice from their doctor within 2 years of starting at Amazon that they should quit, because the stress of the job was having dangerous effects on their health. I can't say that I have heard that of any other tech company.

by bbarn 11y ago

xvf33 11y ago

Same here. I know 2 people who went there, both after short startup stints after college. They both lasted under 2 years and are now at Mozilla and Facebook and would never go back. So many awful stories...

caseysoftware 11y ago
None of that absolves the NYT from checking sources and attempting to determine the credibility. This is journalistic malpractice. If we excuse a "news" organization from fact checking because "well, I've heard stories along those lines" we're screwed.. because where will most people hear those stories? The same organizations.
- awakeasleep 11y ago
  Whether the statements are true or not is what the journalists should care about, and what they did, in this article. You’ll notice that Carney never disputes the truth of the claims. He only attacks the character of the people who made them- or adds related but not contradictory details. Overall, side issues not actually related to the substance of the claims themselves.
  - caseysoftware 11y ago
    Personally, I suspect the claims are 100% true. The point is that "journalists" have ethical guidelines they have to follow. Failure to do so compromises themselves and their profession. It leads to the defense and promotion of "fake but accurate" articles that tell a great story but risk being just that.. stories. It's the equivalent of asking Hillary Clinton's opinion of Donald Trump. She may be 100% accurate in her assessment but she is not neutral or impartial.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - romaniv 11y ago
    Whether the statements are true or not is what the journalists should care about This is a very naive view of journalism. It is trivial to do horrible, biased reporting while printing statements that are factually true or not falsifiable. In fact, that is how most of the biased articles are constructed these days. In the age of the Internet you can't get away with outright lies. The tool of trade are mission, misrepresentation, manufactured context, selective citation, cherrypiked expert opinions and so on.
- fluidcruft 11y ago
  You may see it that way. I didn't actually see any egregious failure of NYT "fact checking" in that victimization post spewed by Amazon PR yesterday. Just Amazon attempting a PR slight of hand. And of course Bezos owns WP, so attacking NYT credibility fits his playbook nicely.
- cryoshon 11y ago
  Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves. For the most part, mainstream media organizations are not really "checking sources" so much as presenting a coherent narrative that their advertisers want propagated. I don't doubt that the original anti-Amazon article was a hit piece that was commissioned. That doesn't make its claims false, however.
  - caseysoftware 11y ago
    If it was a commissioned hit piece, that makes it even worse. We have a "news" organization doing opposition research, calling it investigative "journalism", and then the editor defending their process and integrity without an appropriate disclosure. I sincerely hope that isn't the case. I could see the FTC getting involved if it was.
    - cryoshon 11y ago
      That's exactly the way the PR engines work these days, though. You pay for a column to advertise for your company, you get your column. You pay for a column to criticize your competitor, you get your column. You pay for columns to introduce new concepts that your company will use in the future so that the public has been primed for what you're going to put out there. All of the major companies do these things in order to stay in the public consciousness, and stay favorable. Sure, these columns will admit "alternative viewpoints" in passing to maintain their veneer of credibility, but that's no threat to their actual purpose. The editor is going to defend their process and integrity until he is fired-- and firing him would represent a concession that mistakes were made. This spat with Amazon is good for the NYT, as it proves that they're willing to "stand up for themselves", which is the perfect trait for a proxy to have when you're paying them to go after the other guy.

cryoshon 11y ago

I had heard awful stories first-hand from former employees long before this story came out as well. I'm not even in the information tech industry, yet they complained to me without prompting.

lawnchair_larry 11y ago

I don't think anybody in a tech role would say they have low pay. Many problems, but that isn't one. Edit: I meant in a tech role at Amazon. Amazon are not known for low pay.

CaptSpify 11y ago
You'd be surprised how low people are willing to go in a tough economy. I think the bigger issue is also that techs aren't given a fair-income, especially at places like Amazon, because of the H-1B scam. If you are young and trying to get your foot in the door, you'll put up with the low pay.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
Considering most entry-level positions in big tech pay well but come with outrageous hours and no overtime, an accusation of low pay seems justified. I know plenty of Google engineers who recently started in the Bay Area at around $86,000. Considering the amount of time they're expected to work and the costs of living there, that's pretty pathetic for a huge company with deep pockets.
- lbotos 11y ago
  >Entry level Position. Median salary for SF Region in 2014 was $75,900. Thats ~10k over the median for an ENTRY level position. Sure, could Google pay them more, absolutely. But I don't think 86k a year is anything to scoff at.
  - nilkn 11y ago
    Why should you expect a very technically demanding position that requires passing strenuous filters and interviews to not pay much beyond the median in the entire area across all jobs? Should doctors who've just completed their residency start at $75-85k too just because they're technically entry-level?

rdtsc 11y ago

The level of and emotional investment in denial is important, it just shows that there is a problem going on. It is a bit like when two people are accused of something, one is guilty and one is not. The one who is guilty will react more violently usually and go to extra lengths to "prove" their innocence. So in this case we see them going the "extra length" with these response articles months after the original incident.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

bkjelden 11y ago

I know multiple people who received advice from their doctor within 2 years of starting at Amazon that they should quit, because the stress of the job was having dangerous effects on their health. I can't say that I have heard that of any other tech company.