Consider that the source I was mentioning had no positive gain associated with going to bat against Amazon in the original NYT story, and Jay Carney, as PR-guy, has a huge incentive (keeping his job) to go to bat for Amazon.
You don't think it's possible the former employee had an agenda or axe to grind after his dismissal?
People often act out when they are emotionally upset, which the former Amazon employee clearly was.
This whole HN thread is kind of amazing -- it's filled with ad hominem attacks against Carney because of his history in politics.
Very few of the articles actually addressed Carney's main idea: the primary source from the NYT had a possible agenda/bias. The NYT reporters knew that, but did not report it. They also misled the Amazon people about their objective, pitching it differently and hiding facts that would have undercut their point.
It seems like Carney presented a lot of facts. If you dispute the facts in the article, or think Carney flat-out made up the email he quotes at length (or the reason for dismissal), then you are at least addressing the content of what he says.
granted, i have no idea what his political history is, as I'd never heard his name before.
Carney's history in politics is that of a mouthpiece whose purpose was to propagandize the media and thus the public. Should we even bother to read anything he says?
I say no, we should not pollute our minds with propaganda in general, nor Mr. Carney's latest medley of trying to shift the conversation away from Amazon's shitty culture.
The verdict is supported in this very thread: Amazon employees and former Amazon employees are coming out of the woodwork to refute Mr. Carney's whitewashing and support the original NYT article alleging that Amazon is an awful place to work. The dispute is settled.
We already know beyond a shadow of a doubt Carney will say whatever he's paid to, and that Amazon is a bad place to work... I'm not sure what's left to argue over.
