2 ms·
Sometimes "it's just reporting the facts" can be done with a lean in itself. You may disagree, that's fine too of course, but this isn't a plain jane "Rabbit di
by zamadatix 2y ago
Sometimes "it's just reporting the facts" can be done with a lean in itself. You may disagree, that's fine too of course, but this isn't a plain jane "Rabbit did not immediately respond with comments" it has a timeline omitting some facts like like starting on a Friday and is intermixed with commentary on the reachout. Not anything that's false, just also not maybe as neutral as it set out to be. Also not the end of the world, it's still a good article overall.
- Retr0id 2y agofwiw, my article does not set out to be "neutral". It reflects my research-backed personal opinions of Rabbit Inc. and their products (strong negative sentiment) and it would be disingenuous of me to leave that out. Nonetheless, I reject the idea that saying "July 12th" instead of "Friday" is lying by omission.
- zamadatix 2y agoIt wouldn't be instead of, rather both. I.e. Friday doesn't have full context nor does July 12th. It also wouldn't have to get rid of the other personal commentary, just not put it in the section about having reached out for comment. That said you're more than right in that nothing says the article must set out to be neutral.
- Suppafly 2y agoAt least you're honest about it being a hit piece and not a journalistic endeavor, but you should at least feel a little shame about your own shitty behavior.