4 ms·

It’s a basic courtesy that shows some amount of good faith, and helps the reader understand the degree to which all parties have had an opportunity to be heard,

by epgui 4y ago

It’s a basic courtesy that shows some amount of good faith, and helps the reader understand the degree to which all parties have had an opportunity to be heard, and whether or not they chose to seize it. It’s not necessarily suggestive of much, but it’s respectful and useful for context.

filoleg 4y ago
>[It] helps the reader understand the degree to which all parties have had an opportunity to be heard, and whether or not they chose to seize it. I agree that this would be the case, but only if they were a bit more explicit about the amount of time they gave to the company to respond. Which, I believe, is the entire point the grandparent comment is making. As the article currently stands, it makes it sound like the company was reached out to, but ended up not responding, which might be indicative of something on their end. Initially, I assumed the typical cowardly corporate "better just ignore and not reply due to the advice from legal" approach and an implied silent admittance of the anonymous info in the article being truthful. And then I re-read the article after seeing the grandparent comment, and realized that the article author admitted that they only attempted reaching out to the company outside of business hours, likely on a saturday (given that the article sources another article that broke those "news" earlier the same day). That turned my initial impression a full 180, with the only factual takeaway from that article being that Meta employees responsible making official public statements on behalf of the company observe weekends off.
Amezarak 4y ago
I've seen dozen of examples of journalists sending these with ridiculous timelines (eg sending 10PM Friday night for answer by Saturday), seemingly because they do not care for or do not want your input on the story, but know asking is considered a requirement. If anything, it signals the opposite to me.

by epgui 4y ago

filoleg 4y ago

>[It] helps the reader understand the degree to which all parties have had an opportunity to be heard, and whether or not they chose to seize it. I agree that this would be the case, but only if they were a bit more explicit about the amount of time they gave to the company to respond. Which, I believe, is the entire point the grandparent comment is making. As the article currently stands, it makes it sound like the company was reached out to, but ended up not responding, which might be indicative of something on their end. Initially, I assumed the typical cowardly corporate "better just ignore and not reply due to the advice from legal" approach and an implied silent admittance of the anonymous info in the article being truthful. And then I re-read the article after seeing the grandparent comment, and realized that the article author admitted that they only attempted reaching out to the company outside of business hours, likely on a saturday (given that the article sources another article that broke those "news" earlier the same day). That turned my initial impression a full 180, with the only factual takeaway from that article being that Meta employees responsible making official public statements on behalf of the company observe weekends off.

Amezarak 4y ago

I've seen dozen of examples of journalists sending these with ridiculous timelines (eg sending 10PM Friday night for answer by Saturday), seemingly because they do not care for or do not want your input on the story, but know asking is considered a requirement. If anything, it signals the opposite to me.