I find it plausible they don't give much of a shit about what they write, as long as they keep getting work. I find it absolutely wild to claim they don't aim t

I find it plausible they don't give much of a shit about what they write, as long as they keep getting work. I find it absolutely wild to claim they don't aim to "get" people. Here is an article by a New York Times writer of hit pieces describing the thrill of writing hit pieces, how it advanced her career, and why maybe she shouldn't do it anymore even though it would be better for her career if she did: https://chosenbychoice.substack.com/p/learning-how-to-and-how-not-to-kill https://chosenbychoice.substack.com/p/learning-how-to-and-ho.... Journalists who write things like that SSC article know what they are doing, and the editors who publish them know too and this is exactly what malice is---purposeful harm/ill-will (even if it is somewhat minor malice on a scale topping off at topped off heads). The fact that they usually don't care about that is why they can have a career being casually malicious instead of succumbing to guilt. Furthermore, I find it striking how much clearer Scott's rebuttal was than either the original article or this article. Maybe the author and other journalists can't see the malice because they have become accustomed to poor writing and thus fuzzy perception.