This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/19/new-york-times-did-not-check-facts-for-amazon-work-culture-expose

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Amazon claims New York Times didn't check facts for work culture exposé Amazon claims New York Times didn't check facts for work culture exposé
(35 minutes later)
Amazon has launched a scathing attack on the New York Times’ exposé of a “bruising” work culture at the online retailer, claiming the paper’s journalists failed to check facts and verify their sources.Amazon has launched a scathing attack on the New York Times’ exposé of a “bruising” work culture at the online retailer, claiming the paper’s journalists failed to check facts and verify their sources.
In a post on Medium, Amazon’s senior vice president for global corporate affairs Jay Carney singled out source Bo Olsen, who gave the Times one of the most prominent quotes used in the story in which he claimed that “nearly every person I worked with, I saw cry at their desk”. In a post on Medium, Amazon’s senior vice president for global corporate affairs Jay Carney singled out former employee Bo Olson, who provided the most damning quote in the Times pieces when he said that “nearly every person I worked with, I saw cry at their desk”.
Carney said the Times had failed to check Olsen’s background with Amazon, and had thus not told its readers that the former employee had, according to Carney: “attempted to defraud vendors and conceal it by falsifying business records,” leading to his resignation. Carney said the Times had failed to check Olson’s background with Amazon, and had thus not told its readers that the former employee had resigned following serious allegations about his behaviour. Olson has not yet commented on these allegations.
The Times article, published in August, provoked widespread debate about high-pressure working environments and attracted thousands of online comments.The Times article, published in August, provoked widespread debate about high-pressure working environments and attracted thousands of online comments.
Related: New York Times v Amazon: a clash of culturesRelated: New York Times v Amazon: a clash of cultures
The post by Carney, a former White House press secretary who was also previously a journalist at Time magazine, is extraordinary both in the strength of its criticism and in publishing work histories of former employees.The post by Carney, a former White House press secretary who was also previously a journalist at Time magazine, is extraordinary both in the strength of its criticism and in publishing work histories of former employees.
It goes on to say that the Times had failed to check with Amazon about whether any of the sources had a reason to be critical of the company, adding: “When there are two sides of a story, a reader deserves to know them both. Why did the Times choose not to follow standard practice here? We don’t know.”It goes on to say that the Times had failed to check with Amazon about whether any of the sources had a reason to be critical of the company, adding: “When there are two sides of a story, a reader deserves to know them both. Why did the Times choose not to follow standard practice here? We don’t know.”
His post goes on to claim that a source who complained to the Times about the impact of a feedback system used by Amazon had only received positive comments, and another who complained about being “berated” in a performance review had received a positive written review.His post goes on to claim that a source who complained to the Times about the impact of a feedback system used by Amazon had only received positive comments, and another who complained about being “berated” in a performance review had received a positive written review.
It also names lead reporter Jodi Kantor, claiming she failed to fact check facts properly and misled Amazon about the focus of the article. Carney goes on to cite previous occasions when the Times’s public editor has criticised its coverage of Amazon. It also accuses the Times of failing to check facts properly and of misleading Amazon about the focus of the article. Carney goes on to cite previous occasions when the Times’s public editor has criticised its coverage of Amazon.
Carney wrote: “Had the reporters checked their facts, the story they published would have been a lot less sensational, a lot more balanced, and, let’s be honest, a lot more boring. It might not have merited the front page, but it would have been closer to the truth.”Carney wrote: “Had the reporters checked their facts, the story they published would have been a lot less sensational, a lot more balanced, and, let’s be honest, a lot more boring. It might not have merited the front page, but it would have been closer to the truth.”
Carney claims Amazon had presented its concerns to the Times several weeks ago, and had only decided to make its criticism of the story public after failing to get the newspaper to “correct the record”.Carney claims Amazon had presented its concerns to the Times several weeks ago, and had only decided to make its criticism of the story public after failing to get the newspaper to “correct the record”.
The Times had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.The Times had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication.