• Bobert@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    But you are supposed to reach out and ask for a comment before running a story.

    In certain cases yes. This is not one. What comment could Linus have given that would contextualize the story in such a way to excuse factual information?

    Steve was absolutely vindicated in refusing to ask for comment due to Linus’s behavior. Had he asked for comment, Linus would have contacted Billet prior to the release. Instead, Linus makes a statement that heavily (if not outright) implies that had Steve asked for comment he would have context to know that an agreement had been made between LMG/Linus and Billet Labs before the video dropped. Because Steve did not reach out for comment we now know that this was a lie or an attempt to obfuscate the truth.

    If you are extolling factual information you do not owe the subject a comment. If your work could be damaged (see above) by doing so you do not owe the subject a comment. If a person has already commented publicly you do not owe the subject a comment.

    Steve reported objectively factual information that cannot be excused with any context. The story that was written at the time would have been damaged had he asked for comment. Linus has a public presence and has made his feelings known about previous scandals before, and his actual response was entirely telegraphed in tone, if not also content, by long time viewers.

    There is not some ethics masterclass that would have come to the conclusion that Steve violated journalistic integrity by running this story without comment from Linus. You may not like it, but you’re also not some ethics in journalism arbiter.