> to clarify, the explanation isn't condoning the reporter's behavior. it is simply trying to explain the behavior without assuming malice. Oh, I understand.

> to clarify, the explanation isn't condoning the reporter's behavior. it is simply trying to explain the behavior without assuming malice. Oh, I understand. And that would be my general default assumption as well. Scott also doesn't assume malice. It's just that some form of the "malice" interpretation is looking increasingly likely.