3 ms·

>Honestly kind of crazy that you call such an ultimatum a "rewrite option" It's crazy for me to use the first person's own words? That's crazy? Journalists ge

>Honestly kind of crazy that you call such an ultimatum a "rewrite option" It's crazy for me to use the first person's own words? That's crazy? Journalists get threats all the time. You just made my point on why it's more nuanced that this author engaged and was offered a chance to re-write.

applfanboysbgon 7mo ago
"Offered a chance to re-write." How is it even possibly to downplay something to this degree? I suppose "I'm going to kill you if you don't wire me everything in your bank account" is not a death threat, because hey, they're offering you a chance to give them all of your money. When someone on the street holds you at knifepoint, they're just offering you a chance to give them your wallet and phone!
- caminante 7mo ago
  You're going to have to be more clear. I have no idea what your point is.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
  - dlenski 7mo ago
    When someone makes an "offer" to a journalist to rewrite something in a way that the journalist believes to be untrue in exchange for dropping death threats against the journalist… that isn't a "nuance." Certainly not an exculpatory one. Do you get that point?
    - caminante 7mo ago
      That is my point and that it should be in the headline. You're confusing yourself.
      - lolc 7mo ago
        To me, how the death threat is phrased is not very important. What would you drop from the title to include that?
        caminante 7mo ago
        See suggestions above by me and others.
dlenski 7mo ago
> You just made my point on why it's more nuanced that this author engaged… As the article clearly explains, the author replied ("engaged") without knowing why his interlocutors were interested in the minor details of the story. His initial interlocutor ("Aviv") seemed to be engaging in good faith: "Alternatively, if you have information that it was indeed a full missile that was not intercepted, I would be glad to be corrected." The author was naturally interested in getting the story right, and wanted to understand what his interlocutors might know about it, how they might be misunderstanding it, or why it might be so important to them. > … and was offered a chance to re-write. Do you truly believe that an "offer" to rewrite a story in a way that the author believes to be inaccurate—accompanied by death threats—is an important "nuance" that must be conveyed in the headline of a posting about this? That's wild.
- caminante 7mo ago
  You're not making sense. It's the author's own language. Why did the author use if not important?
  - dlenski 7mo ago
    > It's the author's own language. > Why did the author use if not important? The headline cannot possibly convey every detail that's in the story. The headlines chosen by the author of the TOI story, and by the author of his HN post, both adequately summarize the story. After reading it in full, I found absolutely nothing misleading about either headline.
    - caminante 7mo ago
      You asked if the mention of "rewrite" was important. I said the author chose to put that language in their own title, otherwise they wouldn't have deemed it important. Your position doesn't make any sense.

applfanboysbgon 7mo ago

"Offered a chance to re-write." How is it even possibly to downplay something to this degree? I suppose "I'm going to kill you if you don't wire me everything in your bank account" is not a death threat, because hey, they're offering you a chance to give them all of your money. When someone on the street holds you at knifepoint, they're just offering you a chance to give them your wallet and phone!

caminante 7mo ago
You're going to have to be more clear. I have no idea what your point is.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
- dlenski 7mo ago
  When someone makes an "offer" to a journalist to rewrite something in a way that the journalist believes to be untrue in exchange for dropping death threats against the journalist… that isn't a "nuance." Certainly not an exculpatory one. Do you get that point?
  - caminante 7mo ago
    That is my point and that it should be in the headline. You're confusing yourself.
    - lolc 7mo ago
      To me, how the death threat is phrased is not very important. What would you drop from the title to include that?
      - caminante 7mo ago
        See suggestions above by me and others.

dlenski 7mo ago

> You just made my point on why it's more nuanced that this author engaged… As the article clearly explains, the author replied ("engaged") without knowing why his interlocutors were interested in the minor details of the story. His initial interlocutor ("Aviv") seemed to be engaging in good faith: "Alternatively, if you have information that it was indeed a full missile that was not intercepted, I would be glad to be corrected." The author was naturally interested in getting the story right, and wanted to understand what his interlocutors might know about it, how they might be misunderstanding it, or why it might be so important to them. > … and was offered a chance to re-write. Do you truly believe that an "offer" to rewrite a story in a way that the author believes to be inaccurate—accompanied by death threats—is an important "nuance" that must be conveyed in the headline of a posting about this? That's wild.

caminante 7mo ago
You're not making sense. It's the author's own language. Why did the author use if not important?
- dlenski 7mo ago
  > It's the author's own language. > Why did the author use if not important? The headline cannot possibly convey every detail that's in the story. The headlines chosen by the author of the TOI story, and by the author of his HN post, both adequately summarize the story. After reading it in full, I found absolutely nothing misleading about either headline.
  - caminante 7mo ago
    You asked if the mention of "rewrite" was important. I said the author chose to put that language in their own title, otherwise they wouldn't have deemed it important. Your position doesn't make any sense.