zlacker

>>minima+(OP)
All I wanted to do was read the memo and I couldn't find the link. I'm not sure if I missed it or what but this is a common problem I run into on "news" sites. They quote (often out of context) parts of something but give no links to the actual source.

>>chowar+M6
That's very much by design, in order to paint a certain picture, generate outrage, and ultimately clicks. Recall when the James Damore story was breaking? Many outlets like Motherboard (owned by Vice, authors of this story) circulated quotes and even modified documents that didn't show the full list of research references quoted by Damore, in an attempt to paint a certain picture.

Unfortunately this is the low bar set by a lot of modern journalism. We need a way out of it back to neutral, factual reporting.

>>throwa+k7
> Unfortunately this is the low bar set by a lot of modern journalism. We need a way out of it back to neutral, factual reporting.

Creating fact focused journalism is a laudible goal but I'd be curious of what specific time in history you think that this was generally the case?

>>Dubiou+I8
Not OP, but it was my impression that quality journalism was generally the case in the 1980s (in the US at least). What I was reading then certainly seemed to be. Separation of church and state was taken very seriously.

These days, you can't start with the assumption that a story is written to J standards. Rather, you need to start with the assumption that it's pushing narrative, and hope to be surprised.

>>downer+Gb
I think you should consider the possibility that the news wasn't necessarily any better just more people had faith in a few sources such as broadcast news and national papers, leading to less contention of the facts.

>>Dubiou+ae
No, things have gone from bad to terrible in the internet era.