<Replying to rayiner's comment as sibling because of comment depth limit.> I don't know anything about what legal writing requires. Journalism requires editing

<Replying to rayiner's comment as sibling because of comment depth limit.> I don't know anything about what legal writing requires. Journalism requires editing and making calls about how to fairly and coherently convey quotes because of space and attention constraints because every story can't be a deposition. We can debate the WIDS article but the most important things to me are 1. that there is actually a concrete objection that can discussed 2. how this case contributes, along with other cases, to produce the alleged pattern of behavior, namely the systematic (and willful?) negative erroneous reporting on tech leaders. The cases you gave are not tech-elite related and the domains they cover are subject to different influences (e.g. liberal bias), though they may deserve their own scrutiny. I am also not familiar with the reporting on many of these issues and most of your examples don't cite actual articles. But I already agree that video news media (which seems to be mostly neutral or positive on tech anyway) is a joke and I exercise more skepticism when I read about polarized left/right issues, especially coming from a lower status or more uneven publications like Business Insider. But with respect to tech I have not seen much evidence of these supposed routine fabrications from marquee print media.