I don't think it was as big of a loss as the article makes it appear. I think they should have opened with this paragraph, which is almost at the end instead:

I don't think it was as big of a loss as the article makes it appear. I think they should have opened with this paragraph, which is almost at the end instead: > When the story came out, we knew it misrepresented Amazon. Once we could look into the most sensational anecdotes, we realized why. We presented the Times with our findings several weeks ago, hoping they might take action to correct the record. They haven’t, which is why we decided to write about it ourselves. That would have served very well to address the delay in publishing a response, along with immediately tilting the emotional state of the reader towards Amazon. "We tried to fix this the right way, but they didn't play nice so now we're forced to do this the hard way." All the right words are there; it seems like the order was just a bit miffed.