We'll no longer comment on hearsay, unsubstantiated claims, or baseless accusations from The Verge. We'll be in touch as corrections are needed.
Setting aside the ridiculousness of this position, the statement also doesn't make sense at face value, right? I think I understand what they're trying to say, but aren't those two sentences in conflict? Isn't getting "in touch as corrections are needed" literally making "comment on hearsay, unsubstantiated claims, or baseless accusations"?
It's just a gotcha to them. If I read an article from The Verge and Reddit hasn't commented on it, I'm not even going to remember that quote, let alone make that connection that the article must be unsubstantiated hearsay.
Even if they do, every article about Twitter comes with:
Twitter responded to inquiries with the poop emoji, as they do every time.
This is worse, because reddit is saying if anything was wrong, they would have responded. So it looks like reddit just agrees with anything that doesn't get a response.
Logically, yes, but in the context of journalism, it's actually doing a company a favor to give them a chance to comment before the article is published. If a company wants to say "no comment," or be rude, that's a choice they can make, but a poop emoji is refusing to comment and being rude.
Imagine you're writing an article about Twitter's policies, and you know all your sources are angry, so you think you should try to get Twitter's side. Maybe your sources are distorting the facts. So you send a polite email to Twitter, because you are a professional, and regardless of your own feelings, you want to present the facts. Twitter auto-replies with a poop emoji. No matter how you look at it, that's inappropriate.
And at this point, I don't think anyone is asking Twitter about the facts, politely or otherwise, lol. I'm not sure if a publication would even print a correction from Twitter, if they bothered to submit one. If you tell the press to screw off and not ask you for facts, you will find it very difficult to get them to publish anything you say ever again, even if you want them to. Reddit isn't there yet, but that's the kind of fire they're playing with.
Setting aside the ridiculousness of this position, the statement also doesn't make sense at face value, right? I think I understand what they're trying to say, but aren't those two sentences in conflict? Isn't getting "in touch as corrections are needed" literally making "comment on hearsay, unsubstantiated claims, or baseless accusations"?
This is their “gotcha” move - if they don’t comment, it’s unsubstantiated hearsay. If they do comment it’s because it’s wrong.
It's just a gotcha to them. If I read an article from The Verge and Reddit hasn't commented on it, I'm not even going to remember that quote, let alone make that connection that the article must be unsubstantiated hearsay.
It must make them feel better saying it though.
Even if they do, every article about Twitter comes with:
This is worse, because reddit is saying if anything was wrong, they would have responded. So it looks like reddit just agrees with anything that doesn't get a response.
Logically, yes, but in the context of journalism, it's actually doing a company a favor to give them a chance to comment before the article is published. If a company wants to say "no comment," or be rude, that's a choice they can make, but a poop emoji is refusing to comment and being rude.
Imagine you're writing an article about Twitter's policies, and you know all your sources are angry, so you think you should try to get Twitter's side. Maybe your sources are distorting the facts. So you send a polite email to Twitter, because you are a professional, and regardless of your own feelings, you want to present the facts. Twitter auto-replies with a poop emoji. No matter how you look at it, that's inappropriate.
And at this point, I don't think anyone is asking Twitter about the facts, politely or otherwise, lol. I'm not sure if a publication would even print a correction from Twitter, if they bothered to submit one. If you tell the press to screw off and not ask you for facts, you will find it very difficult to get them to publish anything you say ever again, even if you want them to. Reddit isn't there yet, but that's the kind of fire they're playing with.
Yes. It’s a horrible way to deal with the media and falls apart with even a little bit of scrutiny, but I never said it was a good strategy.