3 ms·

Because the NLRB isn't some opaque body; it's a public body accountable to voters, and as a voter it's impossible to know if their explanation is valid if the p

by bhupy 6y ago

Because the NLRB isn't some opaque body; it's a public body accountable to voters, and as a voter it's impossible to know if their explanation is valid if the press doesn't accurately and fully report on why a particular decision was made. Maybe after presenting all sides of the decision, an NYT reader might agree that the NLRB's decision was correct/valid; but with the way the article is written, it's impossible for that to happen.

monocasa 6y ago
They printed Amazon's statement on the matter. I'm not sure why they have to go farther and print Amazon's now disproven legal theories too.
- bhupy 6y ago
  In general, it's more or less impossible to litigate a legal decision based off of 2 quotes in a public statement. It's why we have courts of law, it's why the legal system is predicated on deliberation. > now disproven legal theories Disproven? According to whom? The whole point of the press is to show its work to the public. Maybe you're correct that it's disproven! But I would have no way to know how/why it's disproven as a NYT reader. Anyone that wants to demonstrate to voters that Amazon's legal theories are disproven needs to show their work.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    The NLRB is the legal system for deciding such matters.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      Correct, and it's accountable to voters, it isn't some opaque black box (or rather, it shouldn't be). The whole point is that, in a democracy, the press (NYT et al) is responsible for fully reporting on the workings of the government (NLRB). The GP commenter is pointing out that the NYT hasn't adequately done that, and I tend to agree.
elliekelly 6y ago
> Because the NLRB isn't some opaque body; it's a public body accountable to voters, and as a voter it's impossible to know if their explanation is valid if the press doesn't accurately and fully report on why a particular decision was made. Since they’re a public institution their decisions are published for anyone to look up, read, and understand the rationale behind their decision. It seems NYT got the scoop on this particular case but you can expect the decision to be posted on the NLRB site when it’s finalized. I suspect the NYT (and the person who tipped them off) does not yet know the reason for the Board’s decision. It’s very likely no one involved in this article has read the document yet and, for now, they’ve only been informed as to the outcome. NYT, Amazon, and the aggrieved parties will probably have to wait to read the Board’s written decision along with the rest of us.

by bhupy 6y ago

monocasa 6y ago

They printed Amazon's statement on the matter. I'm not sure why they have to go farther and print Amazon's now disproven legal theories too.

bhupy 6y ago
In general, it's more or less impossible to litigate a legal decision based off of 2 quotes in a public statement. It's why we have courts of law, it's why the legal system is predicated on deliberation. > now disproven legal theories Disproven? According to whom? The whole point of the press is to show its work to the public. Maybe you're correct that it's disproven! But I would have no way to know how/why it's disproven as a NYT reader. Anyone that wants to demonstrate to voters that Amazon's legal theories are disproven needs to show their work.
- monocasa 6y ago
  The NLRB is the legal system for deciding such matters.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Correct, and it's accountable to voters, it isn't some opaque black box (or rather, it shouldn't be). The whole point is that, in a democracy, the press (NYT et al) is responsible for fully reporting on the workings of the government (NLRB). The GP commenter is pointing out that the NYT hasn't adequately done that, and I tend to agree.

elliekelly 6y ago

> Because the NLRB isn't some opaque body; it's a public body accountable to voters, and as a voter it's impossible to know if their explanation is valid if the press doesn't accurately and fully report on why a particular decision was made. Since they’re a public institution their decisions are published for anyone to look up, read, and understand the rationale behind their decision. It seems NYT got the scoop on this particular case but you can expect the decision to be posted on the NLRB site when it’s finalized. I suspect the NYT (and the person who tipped them off) does not yet know the reason for the Board’s decision. It’s very likely no one involved in this article has read the document yet and, for now, they’ve only been informed as to the outcome. NYT, Amazon, and the aggrieved parties will probably have to wait to read the Board’s written decision along with the rest of us.