I think this is an interesting and valid criticism, but his framing feels a bit dishonest to me. He gives 2 examples of articles in The Guardian a year apart, b

I think this is an interesting and valid criticism, but his framing feels a bit dishonest to me. He gives 2 examples of articles in The Guardian a year apart, both of which don't cite sources and use quotes without citing their origin. I agree these are bad practices and rubbish articles. But then he makes this conclusion which he admits he can't prove: > And while it’s pretty much impossible to figure out what percent of articles these criticisms don’t apply to (perhaps by tracking, say, the pieces of investigative journalism that these outlets break), there is simply no way that the copypasta approach isn’t the majority, perhaps 95% or more in some places. Most of the article before this, which is called "How prestige outlets..." has been about these outlets he describes as "the supposedly most prestigious organizations". Well, just The Guardian, but that's how he's describing them. But I don't think he's actually claiming that 95% or more of their output is this copypasta stuff. Because right before this he's introduced a bunch of outlets that nobody would argue are prestigious, that wrote about a paper he published. IFSL, Gizmodo, iHeartRadio. He wouldn't argue that they're in the same category that he places The Guardian. He's probably right that some of the ones he named are basically all copypasta! But it feels like there's an unearned conclusion that this is widespread in the outlets he describes as prestigious, when actually he's just given 2 examples a year apart. If he hadn't named any of those other outlets, that nobody would argue are prestigious, he never could have justified extrapolating like that from what he's presented.