Richard LewisVerified account

Again, if someone tells you that they are not an expert and you as a journalist say "but I want you to be because of your gender/background so please give me the quote anyway" you're actively engaging in very unethical practices. That's the issue, not what you're talking about.

With all due respect that doesn't seem to be what's happening there, mate. She seems to be using representation as a way of getting around the interviewee's lack of confidence. The last line of that tweet communicates that.

That is exactly what the tweet says. Someone discounts themselves as an expert, she says "oh but you probably are because I want you to be" and then she runs the quote for her story. This is problematic sourcing. It's not on the reporter to tell a source they are an expert.

Yea, I'd be more worried about somebody being reductive and twisting context to prove a point tbh. Of course I don't disagree with what you are saying here, but you seem to be taking a rather one-dimensional look at a problem that's far more complex.

Wow. Insulting someone you believe to be a piece of shit means you're impartial when you come to the conclusion they're a piece of shit in a later article...? What does impartial mean to you? Being an equivocating or sycophantic POS? Did you even read her articles?

It means that you can trust the author not to exaggerate or lie in order to satisfy a grudge. This is why reporters recuse themselves from situations they are personally involved in. Why are so many of you struggling with this basic concept?

Because I fail to see any exaggerations or lies in her article. Point out a few specifically and your argument may seem genuine. But as stands Elon IS egotistical. He DOES have idiot sycophantic male followers, and he is peddling the same "fake news" stupidity as may others.

If you can't see them then they mustn't exist... I mean, she only stated there had been death threats she conveniently omitted. Starting to get the picture yet?

Whether or not they even happened is irrelevant to me. Even if the general thrust of her "criticism" was the overly emotional reaction of Elon fanbase automatically calling her a bitch etc it seems like the same as idiotic Taylor Swift fans. I don't think lying helps her much.

As an editor why would I give a shit about a journalist insulting a billionaire on their own private account?

Because a history of being abusive towards a subject (person) they then write about colours whether or not they are being impartial and honest. Pretty straightforward

The personal biases of an author are not relevant when judging the merit of a piece. Either find fault with the piece or shut up and stop getting your panties in a bunch over a literal BILLIONAIRE being called the worst.

You are arguing that bias doesn't matter about an article that is about the behaviour displayed by the subject to the author and similar people, while saying that the behaviour, of the author to the subject (which are the same), does not matter. Look up logical argumentation...

The article is literally not about Musk himself, but about his online defense group. Did you even read it? Can you even read? Even a cursory glance would tell you this

Your argument's, and the author's, do not hold up if you consider hypocrisy to be a thing at least. Let alone if you start fucking around with dissecting fallacies and thusly fallacious arguments/argumentation.

What the fuck are you talking about? Can you explain to me what you think the article is about? Because I feel like you don't know and are thus going off on some bizarre unrelated tangent.

The post order seems to be off, but I think you are missing out on a few key tweets. Especially the one where I corrected subject, to subjects audience. A problem that arose with the character limit. Find the tweets and try again, or don't, I can probably guess your reply(s).