3 ms·
> by a master of the scientific arts, designed to maximize impact and make the Times look like they were unfair to him. As opposed to the journalists who wrote
by jessriedel 8y ago
> by a master of the scientific arts, designed to maximize impact and make the Times look like they were unfair to him.
As opposed to the journalists who wrote the initial article, who are not masters of their own profession and do not have incentives besides impartially reporting the truth?
Is anyone under the impression that when someone believes they have been falsely represented by a major news outlet and issue a rebuttal that they are trying to maximize impact and make it look like -- i.e., show -- that the outlet was unfair to them?
- briandear 8y ago>... do not have incentives besides impartially reporting the truth? That’s a very big assumption and a rather naïve view of modern journalism. Impartially reporting the truth is what we like to think journalists do, but it isn’t safe to suggest that’s what they actually do.
- zaroth 8y agoThe negative qualifiers in that sentence mean exactly the opposite, due to the “As opposed to” prelude, which is meant to show exasperation. I think a sarcasm is not the right word to describe this. What is it called? Not quite irony either...
- idrios 8y agoFacetious is the word you're looking for. He made the comment in jest, not to be taken seriously