I believe the issue comes down to not needing to later retract things to change the statement, like yeah I know Apple was convicted of this and currently is “convicted” but if they appeal and win and in 5 years the article says “Apple convicted of X, must pay Y” you’d necessarily need a follow up article to correct it OR a retraction or whatever later.
Anyways. I bet that’s the reason, even if I agree that what you said should be the way it’s reported as it is currently the most accurate
I mean it’s exactly what you’ve said. They hem and haw and refuse to report news that could warrant a future retraction—which, by the way, is a stupid take, as news is temporal and current and what they’re reporting currently is in the interest of some unknown future verdict rather than the one before us now. So, given that they choose to report whatever is most favorable for future corporate interest despite damning current events, I have to conclude that it’s because journalists are prevented from doing their actual jobs by media conglomerates who will always side with capital. How does that twist your words exactly?
Apple is convicted of but alleges otherwise isn’t that difficult.
I believe the issue comes down to not needing to later retract things to change the statement, like yeah I know Apple was convicted of this and currently is “convicted” but if they appeal and win and in 5 years the article says “Apple convicted of X, must pay Y” you’d necessarily need a follow up article to correct it OR a retraction or whatever later.
Anyways. I bet that’s the reason, even if I agree that what you said should be the way it’s reported as it is currently the most accurate
So just more gutless journalism focused on appeasing corporate interest rather than reporting the truth? Shocking
No that’s a pretty solid twist of my words
I mean it’s exactly what you’ve said. They hem and haw and refuse to report news that could warrant a future retraction—which, by the way, is a stupid take, as news is temporal and current and what they’re reporting currently is in the interest of some unknown future verdict rather than the one before us now. So, given that they choose to report whatever is most favorable for future corporate interest despite damning current events, I have to conclude that it’s because journalists are prevented from doing their actual jobs by media conglomerates who will always side with capital. How does that twist your words exactly?
You infer malice, by twisting my words, which I’m not doing.
Sometimes bad things happen for reasons that aren’t malicious, understanding that will help.