Trump continues to lie about Democrats being responsible for breaking up families at the border. They're not. He is.
President Trump tweeted an unmistakable lie Friday afternoon in an attempt to shuck responsibility for his administration's new heavily criticized "zero tolerance" policy that involves separating children from their parents when families are apprehended for illegally entering the U.S. "The Democrats are forcing the breakup of families at the border with their horrible and cruel legislative agenda," tweeted Trump, although the policy is entirely his own and there is no such law mandating separation.
— Rachael Larimore (@RachaelBL) June 15, 2018
Trump has repeatedly tried to pass off the policy, announced by Attorney General Jeff Sessions in May, as being a "horrible law" written by the Democrats. In fact, it was Sessions who publicly announced, "If you don't want your child separated, then don't bring them across the border illegally." While there is no formal law requiring children to be separated from their parents, the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy is meant to deter families who are considering illegal entry into the United States.
Amazon asked The New York Times to correct its unflattering exposé of their workplace. They didn't, so Amazon just published it themselves.
No company would be thrilled to be portrayed as the worst corporate workplace in the world, but thanks to a blistering critique of Amazon in The New York Times in August, the massive Seattle-based online retailer more or less won that ignominious blue ribbon. One memorable part of the piece, for example, quoted a books marketing employee, Bo Olson, confessing, "Nearly every person I worked with, I saw cry at their desk."
Amazon Senior Vice President for Global Corporate Affairs Jay Carney (yes, the former journalist and ex-White House press secretary) wasn't having any of that. In a piece published Monday morning, Carney slammed The New York Times for poor reporting, and appeared to discredit a number of testimonies used as proof of Amazon's allegedly nightmarish workplace. That books marketer who claimed he saw everyone crying at his or her desks? Carney outs Olson as possibly having "an axe to grind": "[Olson's] brief tenure at Amazon ended after an investigation revealed he had attempted to defraud vendors and conceal it by falsifying business records. When confronted with the evidence, he admitted it and resigned immediately." Carney continues:
There are [other examples]. In any story, there are matters of opinion and there are issues of fact. And context is critical. Journalism 101 instructs that facts should be checked and sources should be vetted. When there are two sides of a story, a reader deserves to know them both. Why did the Times choose not to follow standard practice here? We don't know. [Medium]
Carney further states that Jodi Kantor, one of the journalists who spent six months putting the piece together, never verified negative comments with Amazon, nor asked them for a comment on the quotes. "When the story came out, we knew it misrepresented Amazon. Once we could look into the most sensational anecdotes, we realized why. We presented the Times with our findings several weeks ago, hoping they might take action to correct the record. They haven't, which is why we decided to write about it ourselves," Carney said.