4 ms·
Which outrage are you referring to? I didn't see any in the article. It seemed pretty even keeled.
by natch 8y ago
Which outrage are you referring to? I didn't see any in the article. It seemed pretty even keeled.
- askafriend 8y agoI'm referring more to the outrage around the article, not necessarily the article itself.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- PavlovsCat 8y agoRefer to it by link or quote. You shouldn't refer to something in sum when you didn't address a single actual piece of it.
- ALittleLight 8y agoI think the outrage is implicit in the the publication of the article. Why is this in the New York Times? He criticized the company, she asked is he had a financial interest behind the criticism. Okay? Why is this a story?
- untog 8y agoAt least partly because up until this point Facebook has denied she did any such thing. If it's not a big deal they would have disclosed it before now.
- phs318u 8y ago> Why is this a story? Because George Soros is a lightning rod for the alt-right and NWO conspiracy theorists.
- isoskeles 8y agoNo it's more like: Because Facebook / "Russia" is a lightning rod for leftists still suffering a narcissistic injury over Hillary Clinton's loss to Donald Trump (of all people).
- natch 8y agoShe did previously deny knowing about the PR company doing the oppo research on Soros... generally when there's a denial at a high level and then contradictory evidence comes out, it's newsworthy. It's not airtight evidence that she lied, just more of a glaring red flag that a closer look might be warranted.
- isoskeles 8y agoWho cares if she lied?
- natch 8y agoShareholders. They often prefer having confidence that the statements of executives can be relied on.
- mc32 8y agoGlenn Greenwald would say the NYT has had several big lies and omissions, should a news org be held to a high bar perhaps?
- natch 8y agoThat’s another topic, and they are. We’re talking about an executive of a public company and the NYT isn’t the only one pointing out the problems, which are real.