4 ms·
It's not just technical subjects, either. In the midst of the chaos of Charlie Kirk's assassination, they ran an article [0] yesterday titled (it has since been
by jihadjihad 1y ago
It's not just technical subjects, either. In the midst of the chaos of Charlie Kirk's assassination, they ran an article [0] yesterday titled (it has since been edited) "Ammunition in Kirk Shooting Engraved With Transgender, Antifascist Ideology".
It's just incredibly irresponsible reporting. One can only assume it is a symptom of a wider problem within WSJ and media itself.
0: https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/charlie-kirk-shot/card/ammunition-in-kirk-shooting-engraved-with-transgender-antifascist-ideology-sources-pdymd1sXXMSlVRhpvR4b https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/charlie-kirk-shot/card/ammu...
- ashleyn 1y agoI believe it says quite a lot when a major and supposedly reputable institution like the WSJ will sacrifice journalistic rigor when they see an opportunity to potentially besmirch the image of a sharply unpopular demographic. Facts still matter over agenda. People should be fired for this.
- lawlessone 1y agoedited but no retracton.
- r721 1y agoThe Verge story about this is pretty popular on reddit today: >The WSJ carelessly spread anti-trans misinformation https://www.theverge.com/politics/777630/wsj-trans-misinformation-charlie-kirk https://www.theverge.com/politics/777630/wsj-trans-misinform... (archived: https://archive.is/liFTX https://archive.is/liFTX)
- Jensson 1y agoA policeman did, the police did tell that to WSJ. The police later retracted that statement. The exact messages weren't made public until later.
- detaro 1y agoAnd part of good journalistic practice is not reporting everything "a person familiar with the investigation" (so not even an official statement) tells you immediately. Because otherwise you become a willing vehicle for spreading bullshit.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]