3 ms·
> The article would have been improved by giving some insight into what changed his mind. The article would have been improved by at least proving he has chang
by smnrchrds 6y ago
> The article would have been improved by giving some insight into what changed his mind.
The article would have been improved by at least proving he has changed his mind. Charles Koch is 85. There is a decent chance he is not going to live long enough to see another Republican administration. It would be in the best interest of maintaining some political influence and making some more change for him to change his public position like this. If he were 60, I would have expected him to wait 4–8 years for the next Republican administration instead.
- Wowfunhappy 6y agoHow can an article "prove" that someone has changed their mind?
- qzw 6y agoWait for actions instead of reporting whatever they self-proclaim? But that would take longer and lose the “newsworthiness”.
- Wowfunhappy 6y agoI think you're being overly harsh on the Wall Street Journal. The headline is "Charles Koch _Says_ His Partisanship Was a Mistake". There's a valid discussion to be had about whether Charles Koch is full of crap, but I don't think it's wrong for newspapers to report on what people with power say.
- lmm 6y agoI think it's wrong for a newspaper to uncritically report what someone said in cases where a falsehood would serve that person's interests.
- smnrchrds 6y agoI agree that it would be impossible to prove anything. However, it would have been nice to express skepticism.