Comment by russelluresti | Hacker News Reader

Comment by russelluresti | Hacker News Reader

I love how the start of this article reads like something out of Character Assassination 101.

Step 1: start by bringing up something negative about a person that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the issue at hand.

Okay, so the guy resigned because he did something bad. How does that make what he experienced while there not true? Oh, that's right, it doesn't. And the admission of fraud isn't a "crucial piece of context." You and I both know that. Unfortunately, you think the reader is dumb enough not to know it.

Step 2: Assert statements in the form of a question so that you can deny every making the assertion.

"Did Ms. Kantor’s editors at the Times ask her whether Mr. Olson might have an axe to grind?" Here, we don't actually assert that Mr. Olson has an axe to grind. We don't assert he's purposely lying to get revenge. We just highly insinuate it and make the reader believe it by putting it in question form.

This is an obvious attempt at character assassination and to cast doubt in the minds of the reader without actually saying he was lying.

If Mr. Olson is lying - sue him. You're within your rights to do that. But you're not suing him. Or the Times.

So, what's the point of this? Propaganda. And sleazy propaganda at that.

> How does that make what he experienced while there not true?

It doesn't make it true or false, of course. What it does (if true) is make his report that such a thing happened less credible.

This is because fraud is a form of dishonesty, closely related to the telling of lies.

Also, being fired for wrongdoing (again, if that is true) creates the basis for an obvious bias. A person who was fired for wrongdoing can't be expected to be objective in reporting something about the former employer, even if they aren't trying to deceive. If that person's report is relayed, but the firing is concealed, the journalist is effectively concealing that bias.

Of course, Jay Carney (Senior Vice President for Global Corporate Affairs at Amazon) has an obvious bias as well.

It's not clear whom to believe in this particular case---but biases and track records of fraud are generally relevant context.

I'd like to to address a somewhat unfairly flagged sibling comment by russelluresti, on the topic of the ad hominem fallacy.

Disbelieving someone because of a bias or a past dishonesty isn't the ad hominem fallacy at all.

Ad hominem refers to a declaration that an argument is right or wrong based on the identity or attributes of the person making the argument, rather than its content, and relevant references.

The disbelief in a report based on the nature of its source isn't a declaration that it is false. It is rationally justified prudence.

Can you guess who wrote this?

"Attackers are simply ... a propaganda agency so far as we are concerned. They have proven they want no facts and will only lie no matter what they discover. So BANISH all ideas that any fair hearing is intended and start our attack with their first breath. Never wait. Never talk about us - only them. Use their blood, sex, crime to get headlines. Don't use us."

That was L. Ron Hubbard. Amazing how Carney's tactics so closely match those of scientology.

And the fraud thing doesn't even look to be true. The NYT writer responded and said that was false.

I think Mr. Olson should sue Amazon now.

Do you have a link to the response? That seems like a pretty serious allegation to drop. Also, how would the reporter know? Are they just trusting the Olsen guy?

The NYT response said that Olson said it was not true:

"But [Olson] 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." - https://medium.com/@NYTimesComm/dean-baquet-responds-to-jay-...

How would you be able to sue someone who said that they saw a lot of people crying at their desk? How could you prove that didn't happen?

Suppose that it's a fabrication. You could hire some independent company (e.g. Gallup or whoever) to conduct a confidential company-wide survey to determine how many employees have seen someone crying at their desk (or did so themselves), and approximately how many times in the past N years for some N. If the survey turned up results close to zero, that would support a case that the former employee is making it up. (Of course, subject to the limitation that the survey would only include current employees.)

There is also the principle that the burden of proof is on the one making a claim, and not on those who disbelieve. Lots of people cried on their desks? A few names, or it didn't happen.

Do you really think that has any opportunity of being a successful strategy in court?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com