Wow, so Amazon found a way to fill their least-desirable positions with workers who were EVEN MORE DESPERATE AND VULNERABLE than the usual pool of workers for seasonal manual labor AND claim they were helping the homeless at the same time? It’s… it’s almost like this program was designed to benefit Amazon at the expense of its employees.
The issue wasn’t whether it would be a “tough story”. Kantor’s email is completely at odds with the story that ran.
As for Bo Olson, how could the Times have “known his status was contested” when they didn’t bother asking?
Amazon 1, Baquet 0
In your story you stated: Amazon invests in its own enterprise to stay competitive. If they were to try and balance their budget, it would mean cutting the lifeblood that is ensuring the only thing about themselves that people are actually invested in seeing succeed: its own future.
It seems obvious Olson is lying to you, and you’re fine with that because it means you can “stand by your story” which every editor in history does at almost all costs. Must stand by those stories, retracting is bad for business, bad for the brand.
This author shows their ignorance in the first paragraph claiming that Google is unprofitable.
The ignorance is bookmarked with the claim that “America is awful” at the end of the article. America has guided the planet to productivity and freedom. If that’s awful, I wonder what she considers good?
