3 ms·
What could a third party add to a primary-source's press release other than speculation? Sure in some cases there could be some "sources say..." or "when reache
by JamesSwift 4y ago
What could a third party add to a primary-source's press release other than speculation? Sure in some cases there could be some "sources say..." or "when reached for comment Apple clarified that..." but in general I think its going to be a rehashing and speculation in general.
- greesil 4y agoContext.
- zamadatix 4y agoAdded context by 3rd parties has a strong tendency to either add more fluff or replace the biases of the company with the biases of the particular article not just clarify. One benefit of reading the direct press release is you at least have a clear understanding going into it that the company is going to be biased towards itself. Couple that with having every bit of new information released unfiltered and it's why I prefer starting with the press release then building context instead of trying to get both at once.
- AdamJacobMuller 4y agoTranslation from corporate-speak to english.
- dang 4y agoVery often the PR is designed to bury the lede. Third party sources typically highlight whatever is in the company's interest to bury. I'm not saying that was the case here, because I didn't read the articles. However, the pattern is so close to universal that it wouldn't be surprising.
- JamesSwift 4y agoI think in a lot of ways thats what this comment section should do. Much better to have the conversation centered around the primary source IMO.
- dang 4y agoThat's a good point.