3 ms·
why it is not an objective list of facts? To me it sounds quite objective, it answers all five W, exposes the facts chronologically and it even showed compromis
by nudpiedo 6y ago
why it is not an objective list of facts? To me it sounds quite objective, it answers all five W, exposes the facts chronologically and it even showed compromise to show the side of the company firing:
> Newsweek reached out to the agency and to Oefelein for comment and will update this article with any response.
Instead, your comment to me sounds likme an apology to the ad hominem fallacy.
- RulerOf 6y agoIMO the problem here is that they've taken a couple of tweets and profile links and ballooned it to a ten paragraph "summary" when a single link to the tweet in question would've served better. When an article about a tweet doesn't bother to embed the tweet, it's probably a good indication that the article itself doesn't really add anything to the topic. Firsthand accounts from _either_ of the parties here would've been significantly more valuable to us as readers.