3 ms·
You are correct about the contextual paragraph being at the end of the article and not the beginning. I try to avoid reading Op-Eds for the most part, but I be
by freetime2 9y ago
You are correct about the contextual paragraph being at the end of the article and not the beginning.
I try to avoid reading Op-Eds for the most part, but I believe it is quite common (maybe even standard practice?) for them to come at the end of the article rather than the beginning. And if the contextual paragraph comes at the end of the article, then it follows that it would be behind a paywall that only shows the first paragraph to non-subscribers.
- kurthr 9y agoMy point is that The Intercept did a better job of including the important information as it was cited up-post in a useful location for the reader than did the actual original article that was (in error) being defended as clear. You can dismiss this, and perhaps everything in the thread and/or the WSJ, but if it's worth posting, it's worth being accurate. But, if it's all so unimportant that nobody on this thread cares, then why post any comments about it at all? That's my question, because personally I find funny the parts I don't find sad. Seriously, did you watch the comedy videos included in the decision by the chairman and the preceding industry event? They are included in my flagged comment below.