3 ms·

I have no problem with Erica Joy's approach here. She told a fairly comprehensive story about a concern she had with Google, and ended it with a fairly unassai

I have no problem with Erica Joy's approach here. She told a fairly comprehensive story about a concern she had with Google, and ended it with a fairly unassailable moral (doodles do not an 'ethical' company make). Wired, on the other hand, stooped to about the journalistic level of Gawker with this. If you're going to run social media content as an article, that deserves background and confirmation. If you're going to implicitly accuse an organization of racism, sexism, and violating labor laws, that demands proper followup and investigation. Wired had a real opportunity here to do serious journalism here and squandered it.

nsfyn55 11y ago
I am largely in agreement with you, but I can't help but feel Erica Joy is skirting some gray areas here. In one breath she states its "illegal to retaliate for sharing salary information" yet a spreadsheet she implies clearly evidences discrimination hasn't found itself in the hands of a qualified attorney. If the former is true barring legalities I may not be familiar(disclaimer not an attorney) the participants would seem to be protected. In addition she strongly implies damning evidence can be demonstrated with some "spreadsheet magic" but is very careful not to use specific language. This could be construed as someone avoiding accusations of libel. I'm interested though if this spreadsheet has the level of adoption she claims(thought I don't quite understand the bit about 5% of former co. if she means google that'd be 2,500 people) It will certainly leak then we can run the pivots ourselves.