To clarify, the problem here is Bloomberg automatically turning YouTube's PR statement into their headline. "Mistakenly" is how YouTube's PR copy wants to descr

To clarify, the problem here is Bloomberg automatically turning YouTube's PR statement into their headline. "Mistakenly" is how YouTube's PR copy wants to describe the actions to soften the impact. A neutral headline would have been "YouTube's New Moderators Mistakenly Pull Right-Wing Channels." Then, in the body of the story, the reporter can report that YouTube's PR department assures us that this wasn't company policy. Instead, they chose to carry the PR department's water by incorporating their PR claims into the headline. In all likelihood, the "moderators" ban channels they don't agree with on purpose. It may be against company policy for them to that, but that doesn't an honest mistake make. Clearly, company policy and procedures are not geared towards catching these kinds of "mistakes". Now, actually do not follow these channels, and I am indifferent to their existence. I am more offended by the reduction of journalism to verbatim copying from PR responses. What if such moderators had banned Bloomberg's YouTube channel? Would this story have assured us that it was just a simple mistake? PS: For the record, YouTube has the right to decide what content they will host on their platform.