6 ms·

Well it's also what Scott Aaron's on says about the story, as he explains in this post, he knew the writer and knew the story he was working on.

• pvg 6y ago
  He doesn't really say anything about the story. He says he knows the journalist and believes them to be well-intentioned. A well-intentioned journalist can find something worth reporting that the subject of the reporting doesn't like. We don't really know anything about the story other than what subjects and sources have inferred about it. Such inferences aren't always accurate and they certainly shouldn't be attributed to the writer before they've actually said or published anything themselves.
  • tgb 6y ago
    Aaronson was interviewed for this story and gave has (positive) opinion about the story specifically to Alexander.
    • pvg 6y ago
      It's not what the linked piece says. It says he vouched for the journalist's good intentions. No journalist is going to offer you a promise they're writing a positive story, it's not a sensible way for journalism to work.
      • tgb 6y ago
        No, he indicates his familiarity with that specific story (unless the author was writing two stories on the same community within weeks of each other) and not just the author. He was interview for that story and judged it likely to be positive. Therefore we have two people's opinion of the story, that both have partial information is irrelevant.