4 ms·

These are right in the article: wrote in a Slack message that was viewed by The Times. according to a copy of the message seen by The Times according to a co

by pvg 6y ago

These are right in the article: wrote in a Slack message that was viewed by The Times. according to a copy of the message seen by The Times according to a copy reviewed by The Times.

treis 6y ago
None of those are messages/documents contain racist action by anyone at Coinbase. They are (1) a reaction to a blog post, (2) a reaction to a letter, and (3) a conclusion in a report. They are not concrete evidence of racism.
- pvg 6y ago
  I'm not sure what your standard is, you said 'corroborating evidence'. This is evidence that corroborates what the employees told the NYT. Now you're at 'concrete evidence'. What would that be? That someone yelled racial slurs at employees and then handed out signed receipts? The coinbase 'prebuttal' doesn't concretely dispute much either, it says you're going to see some stuff in the NYT that's 'hard to read'. If anything, it's striking how little both pieces disagree about the employees' allegations.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    For example, the article talks extensively about Layllen Sawyerr's case. So I'd expect corroboration to look something like "we talked to suchandsuch other people who confirmed she was treated unfairly", "we read this email in which she was treated unfairly", or perhaps "we heard about this specific personnel decision which was unfair to her". A lack of corroboration doesn't mean her accusations are false, but a lack of attempt to corroborate is very troubling from a national newspaper, especially when the subject of the article is going on the record to say the accusations aren't true. Either Milosevich and Coinbase are lying about their investigation or Sawyerr's story is false - isn't the NYT curious to figure out which one?
    - pjc50 6y ago
      This isn't Scottish Law, you don't need to corroborate every single item with third parties. (I wonder how many people apply this level of corroboration requirement to forward-looking statements about the benefits of bitcoin?)
      - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        You don't need to do anything. Newspapers are free to publish whatever they'd like. But if the NYT isn't interested in discovering the truth of the accusations, that lends credence to the idea that their primary motivation is not the accusations but Coinbase's lack of support for racial justice politics.
        tptacek 6y ago
        Again: the NYT is a newspaper, and isn't vested with subpoena powers. They operate within the limits all newspapers operate in, and there is more than enough meat in this story to understand why they ran with it. "Isn't interested in discovering the truth of the accusations" is hardly a fair criticism here.
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        A lack of subpoena powers doesn't mean they can't look into it! Take this article on the US Meat Animal Research Center (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/20/dining/animal-welfare-at-risk-in-experiments-for-meat-industry.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/20/dining/animal-welfare-at-...) as a good example of an organizational misconduct investigation done right. Dr. Keen told the Times they're doing some abusive things to the animals. So the Times talked to a bunch of employees, and reviewed a bunch of documents, in order to make sure they could accurately and concretely describe specific instances of wrongdoing. This is the quality of journalism the New York Times is generally known for. It would be a much worse article - both less fair to the research center and less convincing about the accusations - if they hadn't dug in like that.

by pvg 6y ago

These are right in the article: wrote in a Slack message that was viewed by The Times. according to a copy of the message seen by The Times according to a copy reviewed by The Times.

treis 6y ago

None of those are messages/documents contain racist action by anyone at Coinbase. They are (1) a reaction to a blog post, (2) a reaction to a letter, and (3) a conclusion in a report. They are not concrete evidence of racism.

pvg 6y ago
I'm not sure what your standard is, you said 'corroborating evidence'. This is evidence that corroborates what the employees told the NYT. Now you're at 'concrete evidence'. What would that be? That someone yelled racial slurs at employees and then handed out signed receipts? The coinbase 'prebuttal' doesn't concretely dispute much either, it says you're going to see some stuff in the NYT that's 'hard to read'. If anything, it's striking how little both pieces disagree about the employees' allegations.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  For example, the article talks extensively about Layllen Sawyerr's case. So I'd expect corroboration to look something like "we talked to suchandsuch other people who confirmed she was treated unfairly", "we read this email in which she was treated unfairly", or perhaps "we heard about this specific personnel decision which was unfair to her". A lack of corroboration doesn't mean her accusations are false, but a lack of attempt to corroborate is very troubling from a national newspaper, especially when the subject of the article is going on the record to say the accusations aren't true. Either Milosevich and Coinbase are lying about their investigation or Sawyerr's story is false - isn't the NYT curious to figure out which one?
  - pjc50 6y ago
    This isn't Scottish Law, you don't need to corroborate every single item with third parties. (I wonder how many people apply this level of corroboration requirement to forward-looking statements about the benefits of bitcoin?)
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      You don't need to do anything. Newspapers are free to publish whatever they'd like. But if the NYT isn't interested in discovering the truth of the accusations, that lends credence to the idea that their primary motivation is not the accusations but Coinbase's lack of support for racial justice politics.
      - tptacek 6y ago
        Again: the NYT is a newspaper, and isn't vested with subpoena powers. They operate within the limits all newspapers operate in, and there is more than enough meat in this story to understand why they ran with it. "Isn't interested in discovering the truth of the accusations" is hardly a fair criticism here.
        SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
        A lack of subpoena powers doesn't mean they can't look into it! Take this article on the US Meat Animal Research Center (https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/20/dining/animal-welfare-at-risk-in-experiments-for-meat-industry.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/20/dining/animal-welfare-at-...) as a good example of an organizational misconduct investigation done right. Dr. Keen told the Times they're doing some abusive things to the animals. So the Times talked to a bunch of employees, and reviewed a bunch of documents, in order to make sure they could accurately and concretely describe specific instances of wrongdoing. This is the quality of journalism the New York Times is generally known for. It would be a much worse article - both less fair to the research center and less convincing about the accusations - if they hadn't dug in like that.