3 ms·
So it's your point of view that the NYT's shouldn't be doing journalism, but advocacy? Readers don't get to make up their minds, but get spoon fed just what the
by merpnderp 6y ago
So it's your point of view that the NYT's shouldn't be doing journalism, but advocacy? Readers don't get to make up their minds, but get spoon fed just what they need to know as determined by their betters? It's a brave new world you're creating.
- monocasa 6y agoThe NLRB is the legal system for deciding such matters. Amazon's legal theories no longer hold weight. Do you expect the NYT to publish every failed, specious motion filed in standard court cases in the name of "both sides" after the case has been decided? No, you take statements from both sides, and report what the legal system has decided.
- slibhb 6y agoI have a feeling that you wouldn't be making this argument if the decision was reversed. The law is important, it's how we resolve disputes like this. But rulings can be disputed and one is not obligated to dismiss "Amazon's legal theories" from one's mind just because some legal body ruled one way or another. As a reader, I am interested to hear exactly how Amazon claims these former employees violated its internal policies. The article's lack of curiosity is interesting.
- MereInterest 6y agoWhile I agree with you in this instance, I think there are cases where the different opinions in a case are relevant, such as the majority and dissenting opinions in SCOTUS cases.