3 ms·
Whoever in Gizmodo redacted or allowed the reduction of the 25+ citations should be fired. That was such irresponsible journalism that it honestly looks active
by wfunction 9y ago
Whoever in Gizmodo redacted or allowed the reduction of the 25+ citations should be fired.
That was such irresponsible journalism that it honestly looks actively malicious, and it wasn't matter what side you're on. You can't remove all the support someone provides for their position and hide it behind a short and vague disclaimer while presenting it as though it's materially equivalent to the original. If their evidence is bad then you include it and let people be the judges. Or just don't report on the story. What you don't do is edit it in accordance with your own opinion and misrepresent it as the original.
People need to call this crap out and shame Gizmodo, and Gizmodo needs to come clean about the honest reasons for the redaction and respond harshly enough that it doesn't happen again. The last thing we need is biased journalism, or an impression of such.
- kuschku 9y ago
- dqv 9y agoThe only link that I could find in his memo that could classify as a random WordPress blog was a summary of an article posted in a peer reviewed journal.
- wfunction 9y agoFirst of all, he had far better references than random WordPress blog posts, and second of all, that is completely irrelevant and doesn't excuse you from providing an accurate representation of the original.