Because the NLRB isn't some opaque body; it's a public body accountable to voters, and as a voter it's impossible to know if their explanation is valid if the press doesn't accurately and fully report on why a particular decision was made.

Maybe after presenting all sides of the decision, an NYT reader might agree that the NLRB's decision was correct/valid; but with the way the article is written, it's impossible for that to happen.

> Because the NLRB isn't some opaque body; it's a public body accountable to voters, and as a voter it's impossible to know if their explanation is valid if the press doesn't accurately and fully report on why a particular decision was made.

Since they’re a public institution their decisions are published for anyone to look up, read, and understand the rationale behind their decision.

It seems NYT got the scoop on this particular case but you can expect the decision to be posted on the NLRB site when it’s finalized. I suspect the NYT (and the person who tipped them off) does not yet know the reason for the Board’s decision. It’s very likely no one involved in this article has read the document yet and, for now, they’ve only been informed as to the outcome. NYT, Amazon, and the aggrieved parties will probably have to wait to read the Board’s written decision along with the rest of us.

They printed Amazon's statement on the matter. I'm not sure why they have to go farther and print Amazon's now disproven legal theories too.

In general, it's more or less impossible to litigate a legal decision based off of 2 quotes in a public statement. It's why we have courts of law, it's why the legal system is predicated on deliberation.

> now disproven legal theories

Disproven? According to whom? The whole point of the press is to show its work to the public. Maybe you're correct that it's disproven! But I would have no way to know how/why it's disproven as a NYT reader. Anyone that wants to demonstrate to voters that Amazon's legal theories are disproven needs to show their work.

The NLRB is the legal system for deciding such matters.

Correct, and it's accountable to voters, it isn't some opaque black box (or rather, it shouldn't be). The whole point is that, in a democracy, the press (NYT et al) is responsible for fully reporting on the workings of the government (NLRB). The GP commenter is pointing out that the NYT hasn't adequately done that, and I tend to agree.

I thought the press was supposed to hold the powers that be to account? Surely you don't want the press to parrot everything the government says with no context or additional information?

To do it’s job as journalist institution.

Though, in the NYT’s case, they’ve been predictably going straight downhill since they adopted Fox News’ high level strategy of chasing, fanning and profiting from political and social polarization.

So, nobody’s holding their breath that NYT would rise to that challenge.

Why does a journalist institution have to go above printing Amazon's statements on the matter, and print their now disproven legal theories as well?

It’s not an endorsement, it’s information. As a reader, I want to know which legal theories specifically were disproven. For example, would my own employer’s “no public statements” policy be invalid based on this ruling, or was the problem something specific to Amazon?

So it's your point of view that the NYT's shouldn't be doing journalism, but advocacy? Readers don't get to make up their minds, but get spoon fed just what they need to know as determined by their betters? It's a brave new world you're creating.

The NLRB is the legal system for deciding such matters. Amazon's legal theories no longer hold weight.

Do you expect the NYT to publish every failed, specious motion filed in standard court cases in the name of "both sides" after the case has been decided? No, you take statements from both sides, and report what the legal system has decided.

I have a feeling that you wouldn't be making this argument if the decision was reversed. The law is important, it's how we resolve disputes like this. But rulings can be disputed and one is not obligated to dismiss "Amazon's legal theories" from one's mind just because some legal body ruled one way or another.

As a reader, I am interested to hear exactly how Amazon claims these former employees violated its internal policies. The article's lack of curiosity is interesting.

While I agree with you in this instance, I think there are cases where the different opinions in a case are relevant, such as the majority and dissenting opinions in SCOTUS cases.