Posted by: Beth Pariseau
An Amazon spokesperson sent us this email in response to our story, Users rethink Amazon S3 after performance issues:
“If you call this story balanced, then I was misled by your reporter. She only reported on companies with a negative experience that was only “balanced” by a response from Amazon to this one type of experience. If you want to balance the story, then she should write the second half of the story covering companies with positive experiences.”
Finding the ideal balance on each and every story, at short notice, is always a challenge. We called both users that Amazon provided. One was SmugMug.com, quoted in the story. The second was Jungle Disk. This company has still not returned our calls or emails. We found a third user, Mochi Media, quoted in the story. These responses, plus Amazon’s reply…
“We’ve had a few problems over the past year and each time we learned something and instituted a new process or safeguard to prevent the problem from happening in the future.”
…was the story we were able to write under the time constraints of daily news.
But should we be aiming for a perfect balance anyway? Yes and no. News is a snapshot in time of what has happened over the last 24 hours. To us, the important part is that over time, possibly over several stories, we have an accurate reflection of what Amazon S3 users think. We have requested more S3 customers to talk with, and look forward to hearing their experiences…