> Wouldn't it of been easier if Amazon had been a bit humble and say: "Yes, things are not perfect, we will try and make it better for our employees." Rather th

> Wouldn't it of been easier if Amazon had been a bit humble and say: "Yes, things are not perfect, we will try and make it better for our employees." Rather than fighting it out in public with a newspaper. No, probably not. Although humility seems like the sensible approach for decent people, a newspaper that has published a deliberately biased hit piece against you is not decent people. The Times declared war on Amazon, not the other way around. If Amazon apologizes, the Times will merely use that as ammunition in their next hit piece. Amazon knows NY Times is going to attack them no matter what they do or say. If Amazon makes any admission of guilt, the Times will simply use that as ammunition in the next hit piece. > Rather than fighting it out in public with a newspaper. Here's the thing: when you call something a "newspaper," especially in this context, you're giving them a privileged status. This privileged status comes because people expect newspapers to behave with journalistic integrity. We give them status because we trust them to do their research and make reasonable efforts to maintain objectivity and be intellectually honest. If even a portion of Amazon's criticisms are true, it is clear that the NY Times, in publishing this article, violated the journalistic standards that earned them the status we accord to them. If the NY Times is deliberately trying to promote narratives about Amazon rather than doing research and reporting objectively, honestly, and factually with reasonable attempts to minimize bias and maximize credibility; then it's not only imperative that Amazon stand up to them, but it's imperative that you do, too.