ok, speaking as a journalist, I'd encourage you to write it anyway. best way to get them started on the explaining and learning
-
-
Replying to @marypcbuk @zeynep
don't do it as a controversy piece; do it as what the coverage should have said in the first place
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @marypcbuk
Doesn't undo any damage. They should retract. They pushed the story so hard.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
I do understand your PoV, but it's less likely, especially as they've already changed wording in the piece
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @marypcbuk @zeynep
I know it's shifting the burden of doing the work away from them; but it's also a potentially good platform to explain the issue
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @marypcbuk
It's not doing the work. They doubled down; kept running stories. Wording change did not change how misleading it was.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep @marypcbuk
Me writing: makes it "on the other hand". They need to really figure this out, in my view. Even then, damage is done and deep.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
completely agree about the damage & their responsibility, but they're not a single voice paper; they routinely carry multiple views
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @marypcbuk
It's like a newspaper pushing hard a story titled "Vaccines Kill!" and then inviting doctors to write an opinion piece on it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
I don't want to sound as if I'm trying to talk you into anything; just giving you the view of someone in the industry
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I understand; I find that to be a non-starter response as it doesn't undo damage and they don't learn. It's the wrong method.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.