4 ms·

One way to look at it is that maybe they want to take the hit now and fight the fight? It might discourages any future journalist from thinking they can write a

by electic 11y ago

One way to look at it is that maybe they want to take the hit now and fight the fight? It might discourages any future journalist from thinking they can write a story and expect Amazon not to try and discredit them. Secondly, as a potential candidate of a finite ecosystem of engineers, I do not forget. To have them put out facts from their files, while messy, at least puts doubt about me ever working there.

jacquesm 11y ago
Company vs 'the press' usually does not end well for the company, they can fight all they want but they are not in control of what gets written about the fight and journalists as a group tend to look down on companies trying to control the media reporting on them, especially if there is plenty of corroborating evidence for that which is reported (and some of that is echoed right here in this thread). Amazon has a problem. By failing to recognize it and act on it and trying to squelch the bad news they make the problem a (potentially much) larger one.
- CaptSpify 11y ago
  Additionally, giving a company bad press is usually good business for the press. Especially in a place like Seattle, where Amazon is not thought of highly in the first place.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  I definitely agree with you, and just want to mention another wrinkle that Amazon could be, inadvertantly, ripping into a large tear. Like you note, they might be able to discredit a few people willing to speak on the record, but if the problem alleged by the article is true, in principle, there potentially are more and more people who would be willing to come forward. People with 'squeakly clean' records. People who might even share more damning things that they've just simply moved on from so they can continue their careers. Or, to toss out an allegory, it's one thing to step on a few ants, it's another to stomp on their nest.
- sevensor 11y ago
  As they say, "never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel."
- librvf 11y ago
  On the other hand, you should hold the press accountable. It's easy to say fighting the press is a bad idea, I don't even disagree most of the time. But that doesn't mean we should excuse their failures. Have fun when the press happens to make you the target. Have fun not being allowed to defend yourself while they skirt whatever truths they feel like they can legally get away with to promote their self-serving narrative. Have fun when people come in and tell you that you should not bother to tell the truth in the face of lies, because you'll just cause a snafu. Have fun seeing your associates share the article with each other as if it's credible and honest when you know it is full of half-truths and omissions, and you can't say anything about it because they have ink to spare to bury you with more lies.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    I don't think this is one of those cases. Agreed that when the press goes off the rails (I've had this happen once, a reporter tried to get me to say something I really did not want to say on the record and the cut and pasted my words until they supported his foregone conclusion) it is not nice. But when the press reports actual wrongdoing you should address the problem, not attack the press. Shooting the messenger is usually the wrong response.
    - librvf 11y ago
      > I don't think this is one of those cases. It most definitely is one of those cases unless you think Jay Carney's argument can be dismissed out of hand as being entirely factually incorrect. > But when the press reports actual wrongdoing you should address the problem By stating it this way, you have already ceded that the press's report is truthful and accurate. Furthermore, you seem to just accept that the press's views on what constitutes "wrongdoing" is reasonable and honest. The substance of Carney's objections is that the report was not, in fact, truthful and accurate. He states, for example: Elizabeth Willet, who claims she was “strafed” through the Anytime Feedback tool, received only three pieces of feedback through that tool during her entire time at Amazon. All three included positive feedback on strengths as well as thoughts on areas of improvement. Far from a “strafing,” even the areas for improvement written by her colleagues contained language like: “It has been a pleasure working with Elizabeth.” He's accusing the Times of failing at simple fact-checking. He's accusing them of failing at responsible journalism. Either Carney is wrong or it is "one of those cases." It can't be both.
rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
I suspect the real intention was to put the fear of Bezos in the golden-handcuffed employees who have to stick it out for longer to vest their options, knowing that bad words about their (former?) employer will hurt their equity gains as well...

by electic 11y ago

jacquesm 11y ago

Company vs 'the press' usually does not end well for the company, they can fight all they want but they are not in control of what gets written about the fight and journalists as a group tend to look down on companies trying to control the media reporting on them, especially if there is plenty of corroborating evidence for that which is reported (and some of that is echoed right here in this thread). Amazon has a problem. By failing to recognize it and act on it and trying to squelch the bad news they make the problem a (potentially much) larger one.

CaptSpify 11y ago
Additionally, giving a company bad press is usually good business for the press. Especially in a place like Seattle, where Amazon is not thought of highly in the first place.
6stringmerc 11y ago
I definitely agree with you, and just want to mention another wrinkle that Amazon could be, inadvertantly, ripping into a large tear. Like you note, they might be able to discredit a few people willing to speak on the record, but if the problem alleged by the article is true, in principle, there potentially are more and more people who would be willing to come forward. People with 'squeakly clean' records. People who might even share more damning things that they've just simply moved on from so they can continue their careers. Or, to toss out an allegory, it's one thing to step on a few ants, it's another to stomp on their nest.
sevensor 11y ago
As they say, "never pick a fight with a man who buys ink by the barrel."
librvf 11y ago
On the other hand, you should hold the press accountable. It's easy to say fighting the press is a bad idea, I don't even disagree most of the time. But that doesn't mean we should excuse their failures. Have fun when the press happens to make you the target. Have fun not being allowed to defend yourself while they skirt whatever truths they feel like they can legally get away with to promote their self-serving narrative. Have fun when people come in and tell you that you should not bother to tell the truth in the face of lies, because you'll just cause a snafu. Have fun seeing your associates share the article with each other as if it's credible and honest when you know it is full of half-truths and omissions, and you can't say anything about it because they have ink to spare to bury you with more lies.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  I don't think this is one of those cases. Agreed that when the press goes off the rails (I've had this happen once, a reporter tried to get me to say something I really did not want to say on the record and the cut and pasted my words until they supported his foregone conclusion) it is not nice. But when the press reports actual wrongdoing you should address the problem, not attack the press. Shooting the messenger is usually the wrong response.
  - librvf 11y ago
    > I don't think this is one of those cases. It most definitely is one of those cases unless you think Jay Carney's argument can be dismissed out of hand as being entirely factually incorrect. > But when the press reports actual wrongdoing you should address the problem By stating it this way, you have already ceded that the press's report is truthful and accurate. Furthermore, you seem to just accept that the press's views on what constitutes "wrongdoing" is reasonable and honest. The substance of Carney's objections is that the report was not, in fact, truthful and accurate. He states, for example: Elizabeth Willet, who claims she was “strafed” through the Anytime Feedback tool, received only three pieces of feedback through that tool during her entire time at Amazon. All three included positive feedback on strengths as well as thoughts on areas of improvement. Far from a “strafing,” even the areas for improvement written by her colleagues contained language like: “It has been a pleasure working with Elizabeth.” He's accusing the Times of failing at simple fact-checking. He's accusing them of failing at responsible journalism. Either Carney is wrong or it is "one of those cases." It can't be both.

rm_-rf_slash 11y ago

I suspect the real intention was to put the fear of Bezos in the golden-handcuffed employees who have to stick it out for longer to vest their options, knowing that bad words about their (former?) employer will hurt their equity gains as well...