Quote:
Originally Posted by Fluribus
As an honorable man, NDA doesn't mean disclose on the sly. I would release nothing. Even were that turn out to be detrimental to my interests.
I can see compelling reasons for why the media might be biased. Your proposed replacement scenario seems no more favorable toward the media. Extortion. "Spin us a story, Amazon, or we'll crucify you." Or abject laziness. "Spin us a story, Amazon, because we're too lazy to think and investigate for ourselves." Perhaps all three of those are combined to varying degrees.
|
There was an interesting assertion made by
http://thecockeyedpessimist.blogspot.com on June 3rd in a followup piece to the one linked by Amazon:
Quote:
|
What I do know is that the Department of Justice ordered that discussions between Hachette and Amazon be held in private, without commentary from either side.
|
Since I've not seen this statement made elsewhere, I can't guarantee its validity. I can imagine the DoJ making such an order to lessen the chance of collusion among the former(possibly current) colluders. Violating an order from the DoJ would certainly bring a greater likelihood of reprisal than an NDA violation.
Edit:
Actually, the rest of the paragraph from the quote is also relevant:
Quote:
|
Still, in one of Streitfeld’s [of the New York Times] postings his final line was “An Amazon spokesman declined to comment.” He didn’t refer to the DOJ injunction, which also applies to Hachette, leaving the impression that Amazon alone is intentionally hiding something dishonorable.
|