> My entire point is that an article wouldn't say (and doesn't have to say) that "This means that any of y'all out there can do the same thing as these coal min

> My entire point is that an article wouldn't say (and doesn't have to say) that "This means that any of y'all out there can do the same thing as these coal miners that created a tech shop." So it would be pretty pointless to "walk through" an article and "prove my point" by finding such a line; that sounds like the challenge you would make if you wanted to sound like you were being rigorously evidence-based but also weren't aware of the points I had just made. I wasn't asking you to find a line or a pithy quote. I was asking you to explain how you thought a particular article proved your point in detail, with examples of what the article says and the subtext you claim is there, rather than just insisting one exists that does. Basically, you're talking in vague abstractions that I don't think are true in the case, and the way to deal with that disconnect is to talk about the specific reasoning. But this is all a digression. Even if some journalist somewhere wrote an article that consisted entirely of "Those stupid coal miners need to stop complaining about their lost jobs! They should all quit their bitching and learn to code!" repeated over and over, it wouldn't justify the harassment of all journalists as a class with the phrase "learn to code" like has happened here and elsewhere. That's the real topic of this thread. > No. "Look at this success story, probably a trend" is exactly what counts as casual promotion! Again, do you hold to this standard on any other issue? Do you deliberately ignore any subtext, and ridicule everyone who reads such subtext into an article? Or is it just for this one issue? Eh, not necessarily. Reporting on something is not promotion, it's reporting. Reporting on something that looks like a trend is not promotion, it's reporting. It's journalists' job to report a lot of varied things: good, bad, and neutral; novel and familiar; human interest stories and world changing events. To be more specific the actual journalistic articles I've read in this thread read as reporting, not promotion. Also, sometimes that "subtext" is just the interpretive bias the reader brings, and nothing more. > Yes, but it's also possible to promote such a feeling while maintaining the plausible deniability -- that you seem to buy into! -- that "oh, hey, we just reported one obviously-atypical tech shop started by coal miners, not our fault you generalized from that". Yeah, it's possible, but don't you think that's a pretty conspiratorial way of looking at it? Maybe the Guardian (to use a specific example) just reported on that company because it was an interesting story that people might want to read about?