• Animortis@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    OK, this I can agree with. And in fairness I was never writing about a big, constantly-updated video channel that was continually talking about itself. But it still screams to me there needs to be a chance at letting them respond.

    • SterlingVapor@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not sure I agree that you have to give a chance to respond - I think context matters.

      I think if you make an accusation or cover a specific incident, they should be able to give their context, not out of fairness but as this might give a more accurate view of the truth

      In this case, they presented a specific series of events showing a pattern of behavior, and a timeline of communication they made with billet (including their public comments in the subject

      What truth could they add here? They could add more details or make excuses, but that waters down the message - the point isn’t “Linus did something bad and made factual mistakes”, it’s “Linus has shown a pattern of doing bad things, and frequently publishes factually incorrect figures”

      I think you’re coming at it from a place of “you have to give them a chance to respond out of fairness”, but journalism isn’t about fairness, it’s about distilling an easily consumed message from the endless complicated facts that make up any situation. Journalistic integrity is about making every effort to give a “good take”, and should put accuracy above all

      Being fair to the people you’re covering should follow naturally by pursuing the truth, doing the opposite is what we call “softball journalism”