3 ms·
The author's bias is obvious. She's not even trying to create an impression of objectivity. The activists and this article's author are congratulating each othe
by googthrow2019 7y ago
The author's bias is obvious. She's not even trying to create an impression of objectivity. The activists and this article's author are congratulating each other all over Twitter. Besides, the article contains nuggets like this:
> Meanwhile, there’s not a company in the sector that isn’t grappling at some level with the ways bro-gramming culture has made tech a toxic space for women and employees of color.
Anyone who uncritically invokes this frame is waging culture war, not describing it. This article is activist propaganda masquerading as neutral reporting.
- malvosenior 7y agoYep, it's impossible to take journalism seriously when they use "bro-gramming" in an article. The journalists obviously have an axe to grind.
- pjc50 7y agoWhat's your objectivity in this, throwaway account?
- malvosenior 7y agoWhy would an anonymous commenter need to be objective? There's no comparison to a journalist. You've commented on this thread more than anyone and no one is questioning your right to state your opinion.
- eli_gottlieb 7y ago>The author's bias is obvious. She's not even trying to create an impression of objectivity. The activists and this article's author are congratulating each other all over Twitter. The irony is that actually printing someone taking the appellation "entitled vocal majority" makes them look bad, not the company. Disclaimer: I do not work for Google, but I'm pre-inclined to favor the employees doing more or less whatever they want, but holy hell, what a way for an activist minority to alienate itself from the base you need to form a union or cooperative.