Amazon Plays Rough. So What?
by Joe Nocera, the New York Times, OCT. 13, 2014
Is Amazon a monopoly?
That certainly is what Franklin Foer, the editor of The New Republic, thinks. In the magazine’s current issue, he has written a lengthy polemic denouncing the company for all manner of sins. The headline reads: “Amazon Must Be Stopped.”
“Shopping on Amazon,” he writes, “has so ingrained itself in modern American life that it has become something close to our unthinking habit, and the company has achieved a level of dominance that merits the application of a very old label: monopoly.”
Foer’s brief is that Amazon undercuts competitors so ruthlessly and squeezes suppliers so brutally — “in its pursuit of bigness” — that it has become “highly worrisome.” Its founder and chief executive, Jeff Bezos, “borrowed his personal style from the parsimonious Sam Walton,” the founder of (shudder) Walmart, and Foer notes that pushing suppliers has always been the key to Walmart’s low prices, just as it is for Amazon’s.
But, he says, when Amazon does it, the effect is somehow “darker.” Why? Because “without the constraints of brick and mortar, it considers nothing too remote from its core business, so it has grown to sell server space to the C.I.A., produce original television shows about bumbling congressmen, and engineer its own line of mobile phones.” What, precisely, is darker about making TV shows about bumbling congressmen is left unsaid.
And then, of course, there is the book business, which Amazon most certainly dominates, with 67 percent of the e-book market and 41 percent of the overall book market, by some estimates. Foer devotes a big chunk of his essay to Amazon’s ongoing efforts to “disintermediate” the book business, most vividly on display in its current battle over e-book pricing with Hachette, in which it is punishing Hachette by putting its books at a disadvantage on its website compared with other publishers’ books. Foer worries about what Amazon’s tactics will ultimately mean for book advances. And he fears that books will become commoditized — “deflating Salman Rushdie and Jennifer Egan novels to the price of a Diet Coke.”
What he doesn’t say — because he can’t — is that Amazon is in clear violation of the country’s antitrust laws. As Annie Lowrey and Matthew Yglesias both pointed out in blog posts (at New York magazine and Vox respectively), there is no possible way Amazon can legitimately be called a monopoly. Lowrey notes that Amazon’s sales amount to only “about 15 percent of total e-commerce sales.” Walmart’s e-commerce sales are growing at least as fast as Amazon’s. Meanwhile, as Yglesias points out, Amazon has to compete with far larger rivals, including not just Walmart, but Target and Home Depot in the brick-and-mortar world, and Google and Apple in the digital universe.
The truth is that American antitrust law is simply not very concerned with the fate of competitors. What it cares about is whether harm is being done to consumers. Walmart has squashed many more small competitors than Amazon ever will, with nary a peep from the antitrust police. Even in the one business Amazon does dominate — books — it earned its market share fair and square, by, among other things, inventing the first truly commercially successful e-reader. Even now, most people turn to Amazon for e-books not because there are no alternatives but because its service is superior.
“In confronting what to do about Amazon,” Foer writes as his essay nears its conclusion, “first we have to realize our own complicity. We’ve all been seduced by the deep discounts, the monthly automatic diaper delivery, the free Prime movies, the gift wrapping, the free same-day shipping, the ability to buy shoes or books or pinto beans or a toilet all from the same place.”
Our complicity? In fact, in its two decades of life, Amazon has redefined customer service in a way that has delighted people and caused them to return to the site again and again. Does Amazon have a dark side? Yes, it does — primarily in the way it has historically treated its warehouse workers. But to say that Amazon has to be stopped because it is giving people what they want is to misunderstand the nature of capitalism.
Let’s be honest here: The intelligentsia is focused on Amazon not because it sells pinto beans or toilets, but because it sells books. That’s their business. Amazon is changing the book industry in ways that threaten to diminish the role of publishers and traditional ways of publishing. Its battle with Hachette is a battle over control. It’s not terribly different from the forces that ultimately disintermediated the music business.
As an author, I’m rooting for Hachette. The old system — in which the writer gets an advance, and the publisher markets the final product — works for me, as it does for most writers of serious nonfiction.
But, am I going to stop using Amazon? No way. I’m betting you won’t either.
SUMMARY 1
This Summary is unquestionably Inaccurate.
- Its author makes the classic error of shouting “Censorship!” when nothing of the sort is occurring, since Amazon has not denied any author the right to free speech. The author also interprets Amazon’s practice of promoting certain books to the top of the page as rather the “suppression” of certain books to the bottom.
- On the other hand, although it clearly disagrees about whether Amazon is a monopoly, it Fairly characterizes Nocera’s position.
- If you call this one Unfair and Summary 2 Inaccurate, we don’t radically disagree, and I’ll be happy to accept your explanation.
Joe Nocera is losing his mind. As an author himself, he should know better than to defend a mammoth company that routinely suppresses the books of familiar—dare I say important?—authors, as part of its business model of diving to the very bottom of the bottom line. Nocera defends Amazon’s practice of punishing rival publisher Hachette by, in Franklin Foer’s words “putting its books at a disadvantage on its website compared with other publishers’ books.” This blatant censorship of a rival company’s 1st-Amendment-protected products is a clear violation of the freedom of speech of authors who had the audacity to be published by someone other than Amazon. But to Nocera, that constitutional violation doesn’t matter. He defends Amazon on the flimsy pretext that they aren’t, at least technically, well not entirely, “in clear violation of the country’s antitrust laws.” And just because Amazon doesn’t entirely dominate e-commerce sales, he comes to the additional, equally ridiculous conclusion, that the company that commands nearly half of America’s book sales, cannot in any “legitimate” way, “be called a monopoly.” All I can say is, Joe Nocera must be completely addicted to cheap e-book prices to defend Amazon’s predatory tactics. I hope he never gets another book advance.
SUMMARY 2
This Summary is certainly Unfair.
- We can’t be sure its author is evil, but the summary distorts Nocera’s views most unfairly.
- Despite this summarizer’s claim, Nocera makes no value judgment on the quality of anyone’s books.
- It’s also obvious that the summarizer distorts Nocera’s description of Amazon’s superior customer service.
- Next, the summary wrongly claims that Nocera dismisses Amazon’s ruthlessness.
- And finally there’s the apparently deliberate misdeed of quoting Nocera out of context in that last sentence.
- If you call this one Inaccurate and Summary 1 Unfair, we don’t radically disagree, and I’ll be happy to accept your explanation.
Joe Nocera must be working on a book deal with Amazon. How else can we explain his defense of the company that doesn’t just sell books but also provides a self-publishing platform for authors whose books aren’t good enough to attract a real publisher? And then, as if publishing their 3rd-rate work weren’t enough of an insult to book readers, cynically promotes those books at the expense of legitimately-published authors who happen to be working with another publishing house? Nocera clearly perceives the quality difference between Amazon’s e-books and those of other publishers. He says himself, “most people turn to Amazon for e-books not because there are no alternatives but because its service is superior.” Apparently that superior service includes telling readers which e-books (and for that matter, which physical paper books) to buy—Amazon’s! Is that what he means when he says “Amazon has redefined customer service”? The comparison to Walmart is obvious. No American company is better at forcing suppliers to lower their prices in return for a chance to be on the selling floor than Sam Walton’s retail behemoth. And Nocera is clearly rooting for Jeff Bezos as the digital competitor to Walton, who is encroaching on Amazon’s core business. “Walmart’s e-commerce sales are growing at least as fast as Amazon’s,” claims Nocera, who uses this observation to excuse Amazon for its heavy-handed tactics against rival publishers. If “Walmart has squashed many more small competitors than Amazon ever will,” maybe Amazon can be excused for squashing Hachette, with “nary a peep from the antitrust police.” After all, even though “Amazon is in clear violation of the country’s antitrust laws,” it’s just good book business, right Joe?
Sorry I misled you.
It turns out not one of these 3 summaries is entirely Fair and Accurate. I didn’t mean to mislead you, but I apologize if I needlessly complicated the job. My mistake was telling you that there was an entirely Fair summary when there isn’t. Number 3 comes closest, but it contains egregious misbehavior.
SUMMARY 3
Although it’s very aggressive and a little nutty, this Summary is Fair in its treatment of the quoted and summarized authors (except when it isn’t).
- The summary corrects the mistaken claims of other summarizers by accurately discrediting their accusations of censorship and constitutional free speech violations.
- On the other hand, it Unfairly accuses Nocera of not caring who gets crushed to achieve low prices, and then does a severe hatchet job on the quote about Amazon’s dark side, clearly yanking the phrases out of their original context.
- Then it Unfairly and wrongly attributes Foer’s quote about Amazon’s ruthlessness to Nocera, clearly unfair.
- If you call this one Unfair, we actually agree, and I’ll be happy to accept your explanation.
Finally, someone is sticking up for Amazon and Walmart. I didn’t think I’d find it at the New York Times, but I’m grateful to Joe Nocera for his passionate defense of the tactics of America’s two greatest retail giants, one brick-and-mortar, the other entirely digital. Both are masters at driving down costs for the benefit of their customers, which angers suppliers. But the latest cries of unfairness from rival publisher Hachette are truly low blows, accusing Amazon of censorship and constitutional free speech violations just because their books are not heavily promoted at Amazon’s “store.” Nocera admits Amazon is “punishing Hachette by putting its books at a disadvantage on its website” in its ongoing effort to “‘disintermediate’ the book business,” but rightly asks, “How is this ‘darker'” than Walmart’s key tactic of “pushing suppliers” for deeper and deeper discounts in return for floor space? As Nocera—clearly a champion of lower prices for consumers no matter who gets crushed in the process—puts the case: “Does Amazon have a dark side? Yes, it does . . . it is giving people what they want . . . the nature of capitalism.” This is only bad news for smaller publishers or manufacturers too weak to compete. Enemies of capitalism can cry all they want to about being “crushed” by Walmart or Amazon, but the truth is, those companies got big by delivering what consumers want. If to do that Amazon “undercuts competitors . . . ruthlessly and squeezes suppliers . . . brutally,” says Nocera, then we must all be ruthless and brutal because we’re not going to boycott Amazon any time soon.”
In Class Exercise
In a Reply below this post, identify the three summaries as
- Fair and Accurate
- Inaccurate
- Unfair
My error.
This is where I made my mistake. I shouldn’t have told you to look for ONE OF EACH when clearly all 3 summaries contain a blend of good and bad summary.
Offer comments to support your claims of Inaccuracy and Unfairness. For example:
SUMMARY 1–UNFAIR
The author of the paragraph deliberately attributes to Mukherjee statements he did not make. His assertion that Mukherjee would support a total ban on travel from epidemic countries is clearly not supported by the original article.
SUMMARY 2—FAIR AND ACCURATE
No comments required.
SUMMARY 3—INACCURATE
The author of the paragraph wrongly reports the meaning of the word “quarantine,” which completely taints the analysis of everything else in his reaction to Mukherjee’s article. He also makes errors of fact regarding the technique of screening for Ebola.
Time Limit: 30 minutes.
ahntkd99
carahall
andrewbecharaa
athenapup4
bane1900
bestbaker123
bmdpiano
comp0327
compclass8
cynicalwordsmith22
doglover441
drippydoughnut
drpaleontology
gcatt310
givemeclouttokens
hershey515
iamsleepy01
imagination4421
influenza123
jackso23
Jayv23
kraemercali
lazybear8
lelebxby
lg102015
lovericeandnoodles
lucbe219
morra2024
mpsj13
roses0102
Sub2MigzFilms
smellycat23
tenere84
thefrontbottom
voxpopuli75
whosyourcookie22
yankeefan25
Newspaperlessness 
Summary 1 – Inaccurate because the writer asserts that Amazon is violating the First Amendment, which is clearly not the case. The First Amendment, legally speaking, only prevents the government from suppressing free speech; it does not prevent private companies like Amazon from doing so. This fact renders the summary ill-reasoned and pointless.
Summary 2 – Unfair because the writer takes the editor’s quotes out of context. The last sentence is a dead giveaway: “After all, even though “Amazon is in clear violation of the country’s antitrust laws,” it’s just good book business, right Joe?” In the original sentence containing that quote, the editor clearly states that this position is wrong.
Summary 3 – Fair and accurate. Though the writer is highly opinionated and and cherry-picks quotes from the writer, they do not deliberately misinterpret the editor’s views nor do they attribute their personal opinions to the editor.
LikeLike
Very fine explanations, Tenere.
1. Impressive that you nailed S1 on its false censorship claim.
2. Agreed that quote is yanked out of context.
3. For the most part we agree.
See my red and green notes in the post for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 1: FAIR AND ACCURATE
Summary 2: INACCURATE – The author in this summary misinterprets Nocera’s claims.
Summary 3: UNFAIR – The author in this summary makes false claims about Nocera’s beliefs on the matter. For example, the author states that Nocera must clearly be a champion of lower prices for consumers no matter who gets crushed in the process.
LikeLike
3. That does seem unfair considering Nocera went on the record to express his outrage at Amazon’s objectionable behavior toward its warehouse workers.
See my red and green notes in the post for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 1
– unfair: he wrote his personal opinion
Summary 2
-inaccurate: statement is not clear
Summary 3
-fair
LikeLike
This doesn’t qualify as sufficient analysis to make your own position clear, Ahn.
1. I want to stress that authors engaged in using summaries of other people’s work are COMPLETELY WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS to express their own opinions. The violations of Fairness and Accuracy we’re looking for are wrongly attributing a personal opinion TO SOMEONE ELSE without justification.
See my red and green notes in the post for more details.
LikeLike
1:Unfair- Author uses quote out of text. Authors words(He defends Amazon on the flimsy pretext that they aren’t, at least technically, well not entirely, “in clear violation of the country’s antitrust laws.”) Joe Nocera actually says “What he doesn’t say — because he can’t — is that Amazon is in clear violation of the country’s antitrust laws”
2:Fair
3: Inaccurate- the author states that Joe had defended both Walmart and Amazon but was only defending Amazon and had used Walmart as an example of a competitor. He also used a quote that Joe had not stated but thought he did.
LikeLike
We’re in agreement mostly regarding Summary 3. Nocera doesn’t seem to like Walmart much, but he certainly isn’t an enthusiastic defender.
See my red and green notes in the post for more details.
LikeLike
summary 1- unfair because the writer was twisting what the author was saying. They give no good evidence behind their statements they are only contradicting what Nocera was saying.
summary 2- unfair and innacurate because the writer wrongly interpretation of the text.
summary 3-fair and accurate
LikeLike
1. Let’s be clear about what is Fair and Unfair about summary. Authors are expected to express their own opinions, and to use the work of other authors as evidence. Summary makes it possible to use other articles without extensive quotation. So there’s nothing wrong with incorporating the ideas of others into a strenuously expressed opinion that has very little in common with the words of the first author. Authors can disagree strenuously with one another without being unfair.
But when they, as you describe it, twist the words of others, THAT is what’s unfair. The lack of evidence, the disagreement, they’re irrelevant to the charge of Unfair Summary.
See my red and green notes in the post for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 1 is Unfair because they do not properly convey Nocera’s opinion and make it seem otherwise. They make Nocera’s view contradict what he actually said.
Summary 2 is Inaccurate because they take his quotes and split it up into bits and pieces to make it seem like Nocera has a different opinion. They twist his words making it inaccurate
Summary 3 is both fair and accurate
LikeLike
1. I agree there are problems with Summary 1, yankeefan, but your explanation doesn’t explain how it improperly conveys Nocera’s opinion and makes it “seem otherwise.”
2. Just to be clear, pulling phrases from an original source and blending it with summary can be done fairly. It’s not inherently unfair.
3. “Summary 3 is both fair and accurate” except where it isn’t. I do think you made the right choice if you had to pick a Fair one.
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
The first summary is unfair because the evidence provided in the paragraph was not true. Summary number two is inaccurate because the author is twisting Nocera’s words and his arguments. The third summary is fair.
LikeLike
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 1 – Unfair because, it misrepresents Nocera’s argument into making him look like he is against the first amendment even though Nocera makes no mention of the first amendment anywhere in his article. This article is also inaccurate because the first amendment does not apply to private companies.
Summary 2 – This summary is inaccurate because it assumes what Nocera’s ideas are when it says things such as “Nocera clearly perceives the quality difference between Amazon’s e-books and those of other publishers” and “Joe Nocera must be working on a book deal with Amazon.”
Summary 3 – This summary is both fair and accurate.
LikeLike
1. Good catch on the First Amendment problem.
2. Another good catch on the “quality difference” problem.
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 1 – Unfair
This summary is unfair because the author is against Nocera’s article and uses Nocera’s defense of Amazon against him. Nocera admits to Amazons habits in his article, yet the first summary does not show both sides of Nocera’s argument, only the pieces that will show how Nocera is “wrong.”
Summary 2 – Fair
Summary 3 – Inaccurate
This summary is inaccurate because the author is set on agreeing with Nocera that his statements get in the way a bit from being the most accurate.
LikeLike
Just one note, Piano. The first summary is unfair not BECAUSE the author is against Nocera’s article but for other reasons. Authors disagree all the time but can still be fair in their strong advocacy or objection.
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
Summary one is fair because it makes no false claims of the article, the summary only makes claims on the author by insulting him. The second summary is unfair because it makes a false claim that the author is working with amazon to make this article and could be considered inaccurate. The third summary can be considered inaccurate because e author of the summary does not have a clear grasp on the article at hand.
LikeLike
That’s a clever comment that the third summary is inaccurate because its author doesn’t grasp the issue. You’re also right that insulting another author doesn’t prevent the summary from being inaccurate.
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 1- Fair
Summary 2- Unfair. The author seemingly deliberately uses a part of a statement by Nocera, “What he doesn’t say — because he can’t — is that Amazon is in clear violation of the country’s antitrust laws.” The author pulls out the statement “Amazon is in clear violation of the country’s antitrust laws” thus using the words in a context that was clearly not implied by Nocera.
Summary 3- Inaccurate. The author summarizes Nocera’s quotes in a way that excludes the negative aspects of his words and highlights the positive. He makes it seem as though Nocera has little to no criticism of Amazon by paraphrasing Nocera’s words.
LikeLike
Those are strong and cogent explanations, MPSJ, among the best on the page.
See my notes in red and green in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 1: Unfair-the author of this article is misleading by including phrases that weren’t even in the original article
Summary 2: Inaccurate- the author of this summary takes quotes out of context from the original author but does not have the intention to mislead the audience
Summary 3: Fair
LikeLike
I wonder which phrases you’re referring to in your explanation for Summary 1, Wordsmith. I also wonder why you conclude Summarizer 2 is innocent.
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 1
This summary is unfair because the author of it is discrimination against Nocera for his views on the topic. He does this while pushing his views to his readers.
Summary 2
This summary is inaccurate because the author of it is accusing Nocera of collaborating with Amazon to create a book of his own. However, that is not the case, instead, Nocera is explaining how important and helpful Amazon is. By supporting the company, he is being accused of something that he did not state in his article, and is not true.
Summary 3
This last summary is accurate and fair. The author stays neutral on the topic by pointing good and bad qualities out to keep his letter balanced.
LikeLike
Summary 1
This summary is unfair because the author of it is discrimination against Nocera for his views on the topic. He does this while pushing his views to his readers.
—Not quite. Disagreement and a strong advocacy for a contradictory position don’t make an argument unfair. No author is obligated to respect the views of another.
Summary 2
This summary is inaccurate because the author of it is accusing Nocera of collaborating with Amazon to create a book of his own. However, that is not the case, instead, Nocera is explaining how important and helpful Amazon is. By supporting the company, he is being accused of something that he did not state in his article, and is not true.
—This is a better explanation.
Summary 3
This last summary is accurate and fair. The author stays neutral on the topic by pointing good and bad qualities out to keep his letter balanced.
—Except where he doesn’t. I apologize for suggesting that one of the summaries was perfect.
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 1 – Unfair. The author of the summary is spitting out information and opinions that were not said in the original article.
Summary 2 – Fair.
Summary 3 – Inaccurate. The author of the summary is portraying the right general information from the article, but not applying it to the summary in the right way. The author is a little off with the article, but not to the point that it’s completely unfair.
LikeLike
Because your explanations are vague, I can’t conclude whether they’re accurate or not, Cookie. We’ll work endlessly on building bold clear claims into your arguments this semester, to the point that you’ll return to this post in ten weeks and see clearly what’s lacking in your work here.
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 1: Unfair, this is because the author called Nocera crazy for the wrong reasons. He used other pieces of information that was not really the main points of Nocera’s argument and used it against him.
Summary 2: Inaccurate, this is because the author is just assuming that Nocera has a book deal made with amazon. He has no real strong points that are backing him up, therefore his claim is inaccurate.
Summary 3: Fair and Accurate
LikeLike
I like “crazy for the wrong reasons” and “assuming that Nocera has a book deal.”
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 1- Unfair because at first Nocera states that he was rooting for Hatchette. In the summary this statement is contradicted by the author. “Nocera defends Amazon’s practice of punishing rival publisher Hachette..” This was a statement that was never said, making this summary unfair because you have to stay true to the feeling and tone in the writing.
Summary 2- Inaccurate, this questions Noceras position and says that he is advocating to take down smaller businesses. This summary is overall inaccurate because it makes false claims.
Summary 3- Fair and Accurate
LikeLike
Summary 1- Unfair because at first Nocera states that he was rooting for Hatchette. In the summary this statement is contradicted by the author. “Nocera defends Amazon’s practice of punishing rival publisher Hachette..” This was a statement that was never said, making this summary unfair because you have to stay true to the feeling and tone in the writing.
—That’s impressive, roses.
Summary 2- Inaccurate, this questions Nocera’s position and says that he is advocating to take down smaller businesses. This summary is overall inaccurate because it makes false claims.
—And for so many other reasons.
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
Summary one is fair and accurate, summary two is unfair because it makes claims that are untrue. And summary three is inaccurate because it is unclear.
LikeLike
Doesn’t really qualify as sufficient analysis to illuminate your thought process, Gimme.
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
summary 1 is unfair- Nocera’s opinion on Hachette is wishy washy, “Nocera defends Amazon’s practice of punishing rival publisher Hachette” it disproves Nocera’s statement of supporting Hachette as author when he says “I’m rooting for Hachette”
summary 2 fair
summary 3 inaccurate Amazon is giving people what they want through the nature of capitalism as said in the article. the inaccuracy comes from Nocera’s claims that amazon’s only dark side is the treatment of its factory/ manufacturer workers.
LikeLike
Interesting analysis, Cali. You’re an independent thinker who came up with observations I’ve seen from no one else.
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
Summary One – Unfair – This summary is unfair because the writer changes what the original author has to say almost completely.
Summary Two – Inaccurate – The writer includes what the author has to say but is not proving this in the article.
Summary Three- Fair
LikeLike
Extremely vague, Valcom. “what the writer has to say” means nothing.
We’ll work endlessly on building bold clear claims into your arguments this semester, to the point that you’ll return to this post in ten weeks and see clearly what’s lacking in your work here.
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 1: Unfair. The summary writer is attacking the original author for his personal actions.
Summary 2: Inaccurate, he just kind of talks about Walmart and claims the author wrote the editorial to land a book deal with Amazon.
Summary 3: Fair
LikeLike
Just to be clear, attacks on an author can be fair. The question we’re addressing is whether the Summary is fair.
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 1
Unfair. The words of Joe Nocera are being taken completely out of context and to support the claims of this author, e.g. “well not entirely, “in clear violation of the country’s antitrust laws.”.”
Summary 2
Inaccurate. Occasional misuse of quotes, but not in a malicious manner aimed at misrepresenting the author’s intentions, e.g. “with “nary a peep from the antitrust police.”.”
Summary 3
Fair and accurate.
LikeLike
I’m not quite clear what your analysis means, but I’m more interested in your punctuation.
Here’s the right way to close out a quotation within a quotation:
“with ‘nary a peep from the antitrust police.'”
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 1 – Fair
Summary 2 – Unfair
The writer does not defend Amazon for “squashing” Hachette, and summary 2 unfairly quotes the writer on his stance on Amazon violating antitrust laws.
Summary 3 – Inaccurate
Joe Nocera does not agree with the treatment that Amazon has given publishers at all. He as a publisher could not agree. He is only making his argument that Amazon, as “dark” as it is, is not considered a monopoly.
LikeLike
That’s good analysis, Migz.
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
For the first Summary it is UNFAIR to call Joe insane because according to his resources, Walmart is growing just as fast as Amazon and also lists off some major competitors. This means that they are not totally a monopolist company or even close to becoming one as everyone is increasing in size along side Amazon. Also the small
Company can advertise or market their books better if Amazon is not the way they want to go, or increase their book quality so Amazon pays more.
For the second summary it is also UNFAIR to disagree with Joe. The author of this paragraph starts out already being biased towards Amazon, stating that Amazon let’s writers who aren’t worthy enough to write to publish their writings. He does not think Amazon can be credited well in the book industry because of this. But books are always reviewed and opinion based on how good they are, that’s why there is a rating system.
For the third summary, it is Fair and Accurate. The author agrees with joe’s claims defending Amazon and Walmart as the author seems to be a big capitalism lover. Sure it is unfair to smaller companies but there is nothing to say that makes this article unfair. This author agrees with Joe’s love for consumer happiness and both believe that the cheaper the products are, the happier customers are.
LikeLike
Very strong analysis and by far the most complete explanations of the reasons for your choices. Impressive.
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 1: Unfair because the writer strays from the point made by Nocera and doesn’t try to justify anything Nocera claimed.
Summary 2: Inaccurate because the writer says things that the author said but cuts the quotes up so they are out of context.
Summary 3: Fair
LikeLike
Extremely vague, Baker. “Things that the author said” means nothing.
We’ll work endlessly on building bold clear claims into your arguments this semester, to the point that you’ll return to this post in ten weeks and see clearly what’s lacking in your work here.
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
SUMMARY 1 – UNFAIR
The writer deliberately lies about what the author has wrote.
SUMMARY 2 – INACCURATE
The writer only discusses the bad and evil of Walmart and Amazon whilst being sarcastic. The writer has a wrong interpretation and rephrasing about the author has wrote
SUMMARY 3 – FAIR AND ACCURATE
LikeLike
Extremely vague, Imagination. “What the author has wrote” means nothing.
We’ll work endlessly on building bold clear claims into your arguments this semester, to the point that you’ll return to this post in ten weeks and see clearly what’s lacking in your work here.
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 1: Unfair
When referring to Nocera’s stance on Hachette, how “Nocera defends Amazon’s practice of punishing rival publisher Hachette..”, it’s contradicts Nocera’s statement of he supports Hachette, that “As an author (Nocera), I’m rooting for Hachette…works for me, as it does for most writers of serious nonfiction.”
Summary 2: Fair
Summary 3: Inaccurate
The quoting of “Does Amazon have a dark side? Yes, it does . . . it is giving people what they want . . . the nature of capitalism.” is directly inaccurate of Nocera’s actual words. In actuality, Nocera does say Amazon is giving the people what they want but it’s only dark side is the way Amazon treats manufacturer workers.
LikeLike
Very strong and specific analysis, Lele.
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
The author of summary one is inaccurate in his summarization. He makes claims and pulls out quotes maliciously and used in the wrong context which ultimately makes his entire premise wrong and pointless against Nocera.
The author of summary two is unfair in that he tries to tarnish Nocera’s record and claim that he is advocating for this company to destroy other business. Nocera is misquoted and is unfairly represented throughout this, and his own argument was used against him.
Summary three was accurate and fair.
LikeLike
On the surface, this sounds fair, but it clearly contains no actual information, Doc: He makes claims and pulls out quotes maliciously and used in the wrong context which ultimately makes his entire premise wrong and pointless.
Your Summary 2 analysis is similarly vague.
We’ll work endlessly on building bold clear claims into your arguments this semester, to the point that you’ll return to this post in ten weeks and see clearly what’s lacking in your work here.
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
1) unfair – the author is bashing Foer to the ground with things that he didn’t state in his article.
2) fair
3) inaccurate- “Does Amazon have a dark side? Yes, it does . . . it is giving people what they want . . . the nature of capitalism.” I don’t think the author said it in this way.
LikeLike
Good catch on the Summary 3 “dark side” deception, Sleepy.
See my red and green notes on the post for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 3 – Fair and Accurate.
Summary 2 – Inaccurate. The author inaccurately reports that Amazon sells its e-books to people by forcing them to purchase them
Summary 1 – Unfair. The author of this summary makes false statements that Nocera is defending Amazon’s choice of undercutting authors of lower selling books in order to promote the best sellers.
LikeLike
I think your analysis of Summary 2 overstates the Amazon “force,” but otherwise strong work here, Bane.
See my red and green notes on the post for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 1- unfair inaccurate
This summary is inaccurate because the only points being made are conspiring. None of the arguments Nocera actually made are brought up, the summary only contradicts his statements and then expands on them by conspiring against Nocera and his character.
Summary 2- inaccurate
The author of the paragraph wrongly accuses Joe Nocera of attempting to land a book deal with Amazon. The points made in this summary are inaccurate.
Summary 3- fair and accurate
LikeLike
Just so we’re clear, GCatt, no author has any responsibility to “provide both sides of an author’s argument” in summarizing. The point of incorporating the work of another into our arguments is to BOLSTER OUR ARGUMENTS. As long as we don’t distort the other author’s position, we’re free to pick whatever angle helps our argument. I don’t defend Summary 1. It’s definitely Unfair, but not in the way you claim.
Does that make sense? I’d appreciate your reaction.
See my red and green notes on the post for more details.
LikeLike
1.Inaccurate
-The first summary claims that Amazon is censoring and violating authors’ first amendment right.
2. Fair and accurate
3. Unfair
-He compares Amazon to Walmart but does not say its ok to hurt companies just because Walmart does it.
LikeLike
Good catch on the Summary 1 “censorship” deception, LazyBear.
See my red and green notes on the post for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 1- Inaccurate. The author claims Nocera defends Amazon’s choice of putting Hachette at a disadvantage but this is incorrect. Joe Nocera believes Amazon is a monopoly unlike what the author of Summary 1 is saying. The author says Nocera believes Amazon is not in clear violation with the Anti trust laws but Nocera actually thinks Amazon is.
Summary 2- Unfair. The author takes quotes from the article and places them in a distorting way. The author quotes a statement about customer service which is not true in Nocera’s article.
Summary 3- Fair and Accurate
LikeLike
You missed something here, smellycat:
Nocera, speaking of Foer, says, “What he doesn’t say — because he can’t — is that Amazon is in clear violation of the country’s antitrust laws.” That’s a pretty clear declaration that Nocera believes Amazon IS NOT a monopoly.
See my red and green Notes in the post for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 1
This summary is innacurate. There are a lot of ssumptions and conclusions being made that were not established in the text.
Summary 2
This summary is unfair. The first sentence makes a claim as to a deal being made when that is not factually true.
Summary 3
No comments required
LikeLike
There’s not enough detail here for me to adequately assess your analysis, AB.
We’ll work endlessly on building bold clear claims into your arguments this semester, to the point that you’ll return to this post in ten weeks and see clearly what’s lacking in your work here.
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 1: Unfair: wrong evidence was given. Authors words were twisted.
Summary 2: Inaccurate: Wrong interpretation of the text.
Summary 3: Fair and Accurate. In this summary it appears the author has a clear understanding of the content provided and gives the exact statements from the text to support his response.
LikeLike
There’s not enough detail here for me to adequately assess your analysis of Summaries 1 and 2, Athena.
We’ll work endlessly on building bold clear claims into your arguments this semester, to the point that you’ll return to this post in ten weeks and see clearly what’s lacking in your work here.
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 1: Unfair- The author uses sarcasm and states their point rudely while only seeing the bad in both Amazon and Walmart.
Summary 2 : Inaccurate- Just as author 1 does, author 2 uses sarcasm in their paragraph while only seeing the bad in Amazon and Walmart, however, this author also uses inaccurate statements when writing their argument.
Summery 3: Fair- The author of the paragraph politely and briefly states their feelings about the topic, and does not use accusing language or tone.
LikeLike
Very interesting analysis, Comp.
Just so we’re clear, sarcasm and irony are not unfair. They may be irritating, and they don’t constitute a good argument, but they can be used by authors who DO make good, fair, and accurate arguments so their presence doesn’t disqualify their credibility.+
Summaries 1, 2, and 3 all fail to be fair and accurate IN OTHER WAYS though, so I don’t mean to absolve them of all misbehavior.
See my red and green notes in the post for more details.
LikeLike
Summary one is unfair because it is directly calling out the author for his personal options and bashing him as for his thoughts. The second summary is fair and accurate. The third summary is inaccurate because he doesn’t properly quote the from the article, making it inaccurate.
LikeLike
To be clear, “calling out the author,” or belittling his argument, point of view, or even lifestyle choices, does not make AN ARGUMENT unfair. It’s a crappy tactic, but not what we’re on the lookout for here. Our job is to find UNFAIR SUMMARY, and that’s a different animal.
See my red and green notes in the post for more details.
LikeLike
Summary 1-unfair because the writer includes things the author didn’t actually say to the summary
Summary 2- Fair
Summary 3 -Inaccurate because the writer includes things the author had written but not proving it into a fair way that the authors intentions were
LikeLike
There’s not enough detail here for me to adequately assess your analysis of Summaries 1 and 3, Hershey.
We’ll work endlessly on building bold clear claims into your arguments this semester, to the point that you’ll return to this post in ten weeks and see clearly what’s lacking in your work here.
See my red and green notes in the post above for more details.
LikeLike