5 ms·
No, the journalist could easily find independent evidence that suggests the corporate statement is bullshit. It should be challenged and ridiculed. That is the
by herendin2 7y ago
No, the journalist could easily find independent evidence that suggests the corporate statement is bullshit.
It should be challenged and ridiculed. That is the journalist's duty, and they failed.
Their job is not to be a copy and paste machine for company press releases.
- carapace 7y agoI agree with your first and third sentences, but not your second.
- luckylion 7y agoYou don't think they should challenge a company's claim, or should they, but not in the same article?
- carapace 7y agoIt's not the journalist's duty to ridicule anyone. Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show" was very entertaining, and even somewhat informative, but I think he would be one of the first to say that it wasn't journalism. I don't like corporate bullshit lingo either but when that's what they say as their formal statement to the press then relaying it is the journalistic duty. It's one thing if the company is outright lying, but PR blather doesn't really count (for all that it's pointless and annoying.) In any event, yeah, if they want to editorialize, that's fine but it's done in a separate "Editorial" section. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial )
- luckylion 7y agoYou wouldn't need to take Jon Stewart's approach though. I'd be fine if the ridiculing comes from another party that the journalist gives room to. Ask a consumer advocate what they think of PayPal's statement, or ask an infosec professional. Letting the PR speech stand by itself without large red arrows pointing at the absurdity gives it way too much power imho.
- carapace 7y agoI "feel ya" but you've got those options already. In other words, maybe you're actually complaining about people's taste in news media?