Dannyalcatraz said:
Btw, Bullgrit, I wasn't calling you a liar.
Thanks. But I meant, (and have adjusted my post to show), that it seemed that you thought I thought the interviewees and/or journalist were lying. Not that I thought you thought I was lying. (Huh?
MarketWatch article said:
Amazon.com Inc. said it spent $2.4 million to install industrial air conditioning units in four of its distribution centers following a media report last week detailing sweltering conditions in a Pennsylvania warehouse.
Here is a perfect example of how an article can present something wrong, even if the writer didn't mean to. This sentence reads like Amazon installed the A/C after the original article pointed out the situation. But...
MarketWatch article said:
The Internet retailer said the air conditioners were online in late July and early August and noted air conditioning remains an unusual practice in warehouses.
So it seems the A/Cs were installed back in July, before the article. It was Amazon's
saying this that happened after the article.
Is this a matter of:
Week 1. Problem is discovered.
Week 2. Journalist begins investigation.
Week 3. Company fixes, (or at least tries to fix), the problem.
Week 4. Media publishes the investigation.
Again, I may be simply missing something in this.
Bullgrit