5 ms·

Side note, what does "Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment." mean? That sounds like extremely poor journalism, has anybody ever immediate

Side note, what does "Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment." mean? That sounds like extremely poor journalism, has anybody ever immediately responded to anything?

randomdata 4y ago
The request to Bard timed out, presumably.
neodypsis 4y ago
Yes, I'd consider that poor journalistic practice.
sedatk 4y ago
First, it means that they asked Google for their opinion, and would update the article once they get it. Second, yes, media contacts can answer the phone and provide a prepared statement for certain news which makes it an instant response.
dylan604 4y ago
You see this all the time, and of all things to say is poor journalism, this one offends me the least. Even a response of "let me get back to you" upon receiving a request is at least a response. That pretty much infers that you've caught your contact unawares and they need to get up to speed. So instead of looking out of touch, these contacts just let voicemails, emails, texts/chats go unanswered providing a bit of plausible deniability of sorts. Better to say nothing than the wrong thing.
jahsome 4y ago
It's actually a quite common practice. Google has an entire in house PR team literally at the ready to field media questions and respond. The fact they did not respond, or gave the infamous "no comment" does say _something_ though admittedly not much. But that's why it's a disclaimer. Often "immediately" means something different than the literal definition too. I.e. it's a super safe way to say "they may have actually responded sometime since we asked, but not in time to be included here." It's not _great_ journalism but it is transparent.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
alatkins 4y ago
I see it as showing that other (possibly opposing) opinions were sought, in case of criticism of bias.
colechristensen 4y ago
Google will have lots of people whose whole job is responding to requests for comment and CNBC will have specific contacts. Google was given a chance to respond and didn’t, and of course they didn’t, they wouldn’t want to.
pessimizer 4y ago
In my cynical opinion, it's because comments from the target of a story have a chance of dismantling that story, so a practice of waiting until the last possible minute to ask for comment has maximized. Writers for major outlets are sending emails the night before publishing a critical story in the morning, then responding slowly enough to the eventual reply that by the time they issue a confusing correction or addendum, they've already squeezed all of the juice out of the story they're going to get and everyone has moved on.

Side note, what does "Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment." mean? That sounds like extremely poor journalism, has anybody ever immediately responded to anything?

randomdata 4y ago

The request to Bard timed out, presumably.

neodypsis 4y ago

Yes, I'd consider that poor journalistic practice.

sedatk 4y ago

First, it means that they asked Google for their opinion, and would update the article once they get it. Second, yes, media contacts can answer the phone and provide a prepared statement for certain news which makes it an instant response.

dylan604 4y ago

You see this all the time, and of all things to say is poor journalism, this one offends me the least. Even a response of "let me get back to you" upon receiving a request is at least a response. That pretty much infers that you've caught your contact unawares and they need to get up to speed. So instead of looking out of touch, these contacts just let voicemails, emails, texts/chats go unanswered providing a bit of plausible deniability of sorts. Better to say nothing than the wrong thing.

jahsome 4y ago

It's actually a quite common practice. Google has an entire in house PR team literally at the ready to field media questions and respond. The fact they did not respond, or gave the infamous "no comment" does say _something_ though admittedly not much. But that's why it's a disclaimer. Often "immediately" means something different than the literal definition too. I.e. it's a super safe way to say "they may have actually responded sometime since we asked, but not in time to be included here." It's not _great_ journalism but it is transparent.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

alatkins 4y ago

I see it as showing that other (possibly opposing) opinions were sought, in case of criticism of bias.

colechristensen 4y ago

Google will have lots of people whose whole job is responding to requests for comment and CNBC will have specific contacts. Google was given a chance to respond and didn’t, and of course they didn’t, they wouldn’t want to.

pessimizer 4y ago

In my cynical opinion, it's because comments from the target of a story have a chance of dismantling that story, so a practice of waiting until the last possible minute to ask for comment has maximized. Writers for major outlets are sending emails the night before publishing a critical story in the morning, then responding slowly enough to the eventual reply that by the time they issue a confusing correction or addendum, they've already squeezed all of the juice out of the story they're going to get and everyone has moved on.