4 ms·
Why not just assume good faith for a change? It's also more plausible: both the guy and the publisher would have had an interest in keeping this secret, giving
by IfOnlyYouKnew 8y ago
Why not just assume good faith for a change? It's also more plausible: both the guy and the publisher would have had an interest in keeping this secret, giving the prospect far better chances than you're suggesting.
Their coverage today was also about as extensive as, say, 9/11. They could easily gotten ahead of it by releasing just one story, somewhere below the fold.
They also published at noon, their busiest time of the day (people checking the news during their break). On a Wednesday. Release it Friday or Saturday evening (i. e. "Take out the trash day") and far fewer people will see it.
- justtopost 8y agoIt is literally their core job to gather data/stories, fact check and publish things. To get one or more wrong is not inexcusable, but its close. They published at noon because its a big story that geta them clicks, and was crafted to put them in a better light than 'massive lack of basic oversight and fact checking' which sounds bad, because it is.