https://medium.com/@NYTimesComm/dean-baquet-responds-to-jay-...
> In response to your posting on Medium this morning, I want to reiterate my support for our story about Amazon’s culture. In your posting — as well as in a series of recent email exchanges with me — you contested the article’s assertion that many employees found Amazon a tough place to work.
Specifically, he says had they known Olson had a conflict, they would have disclosed it. But the NYT asserts that Mr. Olson never disclosed such allegations, nor does he admit to them now.
> Olson described conflict and turmoil in his group and a revolving series of bosses, and acknowledged that he didn’t last there. He disputes Amazon’s account of his departure, though. He told us today that his division was overwhelmed and had difficulty meeting its marketing commitments to publishers; he said he and others in the division could not keep up. But he said he was never confronted with allegations of personally fraudulent conduct or falsifying records, nor did he admit to that. If there were criminal charges against him, or some formal accusation of wrongdoing, we would certainly consider that. If we had known his status was contested, we would have said so.
edit: re-reading Carney's statement, it seems pretty unequivocal: "An investigation revealed [Olson] had attempted to defraud vendors and conceal it by falsifying business records. When confronted with the evidence, he admitted it and resigned immediately" The NYT is likewise unequivocal: "[Olson] said he was never confronted with allegations of personally fraudulent conduct or falsifying records"
Well, only Amazon has the time-stamped records that could prove who is lying here. It was a questionable tactic for Carney to start his response with such a bold and salacious allegation against someone who constituted a single quote in the NYT's story...assuming that Carney is right (because it's a complete unmitigated disaster if he isn't) now it seems he's going to have to go even more salacious, perhaps even post the actual pertinent records online.
How was this mudfest good for Amazon's image, again? And so late after the original story and Bezos's (pretty decent) response?