Read on Twitter
1/ Yesterday we published an investigation into Amazon's massive misinformation campaign.
Naturally, we're now the *subject* of their misinformation campaign.
So let me show you how they operate ...
Naturally, we're now the *subject* of their misinformation campaign.
So let me show you how they operate ...
2/ After our story published, Amazon PR people sent an email to editors at partner publications who ran the story and reporters who wrote about the story.
3/ There’s a lot to break down. First, I just find it telling they put part of their smear against us as “on background.”
They’re telling reporters aren’t supposed to directly quote it. But that’s something a reporter should only honor if they agree to it ahead of time.
They’re telling reporters aren’t supposed to directly quote it. But that’s something a reporter should only honor if they agree to it ahead of time.
4/ Second, if you read closely, they don’t actually challenge the findings of our story.
They mostly just make weird claims against us, like we’re “guided by a sense of activism rather than journalism.”
They mostly just make weird claims against us, like we’re “guided by a sense of activism rather than journalism.”
5/ As best I can tell, there’s only one real factual issue the company raises in its letter.
As it's evidence that we “misinterpreted” the company’s data, Amazon claims that we use a metric -- the serious injury rate -- that does not exist.
As it's evidence that we “misinterpreted” the company’s data, Amazon claims that we use a metric -- the serious injury rate -- that does not exist.
6/ So this is kind of funny.
See all we’ve done here is taken that time-tested journalism approach whereby you avoid a horrible government acronym (DART) and instead use a phrase that a common human can understand -- “serious injury.”
See all we’ve done here is taken that time-tested journalism approach whereby you avoid a horrible government acronym (DART) and instead use a phrase that a common human can understand -- “serious injury.”
7/ And we’re not wrong in doing this.
For example, here’s what David Micheals says about it (he ran OSHA under Obama):
For example, here’s what David Micheals says about it (he ran OSHA under Obama):
8/ But anyway let’s focus on the smear.
In the "On background" section -- the part the tell reporters not to quote directly -- they say we are biased against Amazon.
We’re “an advocacy organization focused on government transparency and pro-union activity.”
In the "On background" section -- the part the tell reporters not to quote directly -- they say we are biased against Amazon.
We’re “an advocacy organization focused on government transparency and pro-union activity.”
9/ I mean, I can't lie: we do love us some government transparency!
We don’t have any connection to labor unions, though we do tend to focus on abuses of power. And those often happen in the workplace.
We don’t have any connection to labor unions, though we do tend to focus on abuses of power. And those often happen in the workplace.
10/ As for being guided by a sense of activism rather than objectivity.
Well, we do hope to see change come about from our work. I mean we spend like a year of our lives on these stories because we think we’ve found something important. Sure hope something comes of it.
Well, we do hope to see change come about from our work. I mean we spend like a year of our lives on these stories because we think we’ve found something important. Sure hope something comes of it.
11/ And, this is my personal belief here and not necessarily the organization, but I don’t think objectivity is possible. We all bring our life experiences and assumptions to a story. We shouldn’t hide from that.
The goal should be accuracy, fairness and transparency.
The goal should be accuracy, fairness and transparency.
12/ On that note, I did want to say how hard @willcir tried to get Amazon to talk to him.
He first requested an interview on Aug. 19. On Sept. 9, he sent a list of 35 detailed questions about our findings and data.
He first requested an interview on Aug. 19. On Sept. 9, he sent a list of 35 detailed questions about our findings and data.
13/ We do that to get their comment, and also so they have a chance to tell us if we have anything wrong.
They wouldn't do an interview. They didn't answer our questions. They sent a broad statement, which we quoted from in the story when it was appropriate.
They wouldn't do an interview. They didn't answer our questions. They sent a broad statement, which we quoted from in the story when it was appropriate.
14/ So, considering that fact, I feel pretty good about where we are in trying to hit those three goals.
But go ahead and read the story for yourself: https://www.revealnews.org/article/how-amazon-hid-its-safety-crisis/
But go ahead and read the story for yourself: https://www.revealnews.org/article/how-amazon-hid-its-safety-crisis/
