3 ms·
> The case is Razak v. Uber Technologies Inc, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:16-cv-00573. I would just like to commend Reu
by tom_mellior 9y ago
> The case is Razak v. Uber Technologies Inc, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 2:16-cv-00573.
I would just like to commend Reuters for giving an explicit, concrete citation of the case in question.
We should really hold journalists to the minimal standard of actually pointing us the the primary source. It's not hard; they know what it is they are referring to. All they need to do is to put it into the article, as was done here. Good job.
(The same goes not just for "some court has ruled that X", but also for "a new study found that Y".)
- jiveturkey 9y agoI don’t think they leave out citations due to laziness or difficulty. It’s because the general public glazes over as more of the detail is presented. Which hurts revenue.
- tom_mellior 9y agoThe "general public" that reads an article about a specific court case until the very end would be too scared by a case number appearing in the last sentence or in an end note? I don't quite believe that.
- zhte415 9y agoWhen writing for diverse audiences there are ways of dealing with this. Footnotes. 'Click for conments' etc
- gowld 9y agoIt's especially great because if you search the actual ruling, you can see that Reuters summary is BS.
- tom_mellior 9y agoOops, I missed this late answer. In case you wonder by here again, would you mind providing a link and maybe a brief summary of what parts of the Reuters article is BS?