You respond with specific facts and supporting evidence, not nebulous dismissals, which is how guilty companies respond.

Good point. Let's see if CB follows up with evidence and details after the specificities of the NYT story come to light, but I agree that the lack of detail here is a bit suspect

> nebulous dismissals

this sounds like a good band name

sorry about the offtopic comment

TBH, this blog post from CB sounded like something you’d hear from the Trump campaign. Everything’s fine, we’re making lotsa money, it’s all fake news...

They probably wouldn’t have responded preemptively.

Why not? They would've had intel from current employees who were interviewed about the likely contents, and they claim that a number of the allegations that are likely to be published are false. If I was either innocent or guilty of such allegations, I will want to try to control the narrative ahead of time. Doing so doesn't seem to update our prior beliefs about the probability of guilt, all it shows us is that the allegations are significant enough to warrant damage control

Because ideally your culture should be strong enough to weather things like these, and your damage control should read more as a statement of facts than "we did nothing wrong," especially when you issue it preemptively.

That's fair enough. They did say that three former Black employees made false allegations though, so there was some specificity there. Although it would be been better to outline what those allegations were and why they were false, in that I certainly agree (and not having done that, it is a bit suspect)