Hacking Through Amazon’s Jungle of Coverage
Jeff Jarvis
13115

It’s true that almost anybody who uses Amazon — and that includes almost anybody who has any money to spend these days — would inevitably read the piece wondering how a company created by people who are under so much stress and conflict could possibly create a set of products they are so delighted with. It’s also almost certain, as you point out, that the Times surfaced some random employees in its interviewing who said positive things they didn’t dwell on (though there were a couple asides as I recall that bespoke excitement and satisfaction in the work environment, even from non-shill interviewees). To compound the sense that the Times was lopsided, George Anders in Forbes [http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeanders/2015/08/15/what-the-ny-times-didnt-tell-you-in-its-amazon-workplace-expose/] notes that the seemingly telling anecdote about instructing his grandmother not to smoke from the Princeton commencement speech was unfairly cropped to omit the central point of Bezos in telling it — that he learned afterward from his grandfather that behavior like that was cruel and he shouldn’t do it, and that the Princetonians shouldn’t either. As Anders asks, if they apparently with intention mangled that anecdote which is checkable, what distortions did the paper impose on those we cannot check?

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.