There's a real problem where people see the social context in which a document is being discussed before the document itself, and the two become inseparable in

There's a real problem where people see the social context in which a document is being discussed before the document itself, and the two become inseparable in their heads. From the start the discussion was framed around lossy compressions of its content. "He says women are biologically unfit to be programmers." "He's anti-diversity." At the height of lossiness: "This manifesto is sexist and bigoted." When in fact he never says any of these things, and in some cases says the opposite. Try asking people to link to the specific section in http://diversitymemo.com http://diversitymemo.com where the author supposedly said what they claim he said, and surprisingly often they're unable to do it. At some point, lossy compression crosses over into mendacity. Shame on Gizmodo for initially reporting this as an "anti-diversity" memo. If you're a journalist, you know that is not an adequately high-resolution description of a complex body of text. But it's good for page views, so they do it. And the other publications follow suit.