Thanks for the sources! I wish that news articles would actually cite how they know things — it’s annoying to me that their statements regarding the reviews are essentially conjecture — I don’t want to have to feel like I need to just take their word for it.
I wish that news articles would actually cite how they know things
Yep. When I actually started reading some news articles and quickly found out that I was on my own if I want to learn more or verify what I just read, really put me off that stuff.
When I actually post something informative, it seems crazy to not include the links I already have anyway. And make sure it’s viewable in the wayback machine if it’s something so predictably ephemeral…
When I actually post something informative, it seems crazy to not include the links I already have anyway. And make sure it’s viewable in the wayback machine if it’s something so predictably ephemeral…
Citing sources is a practice that I think is sorely lacking in public discourse currently. I appreciate all efforts to quell misinformation and disinformation.
Their reputation and past reporting is supposed to back up things they state as facts (like assuming that reviews they cite are real) for practicality and brevity. Imagine having to document every bit of background research in a presentable way.
They could have included screenshots though.
And the skepticism is healthy. I do personally ‘trust’ Axios (which I read almost daily but regularly double check).
If you’re willing to believe a couple of random news outlets:
https://www.axios.com/2024/12/09/altoona-mcdonalds-luigi-mangione-unitedhealthcare https://www.ibtimes.com/altoona-mcdonalds-flooded-angry-1-star-reviews-after-arrest-suspected-unitedhealthcare-ceo-3754683
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/dec/9/altoona-pennsylvania-mcdonald-reviews-go-negative-/
Not hard to imagine thag G**gle would be on the case, deleting reviews by now.
Fair point.
Thanks for the sources! I wish that news articles would actually cite how they know things — it’s annoying to me that their statements regarding the reviews are essentially conjecture — I don’t want to have to feel like I need to just take their word for it.
Yep. When I actually started reading some news articles and quickly found out that I was on my own if I want to learn more or verify what I just read, really put me off that stuff.
When I actually post something informative, it seems crazy to not include the links I already have anyway. And make sure it’s viewable in the wayback machine if it’s something so predictably ephemeral…
Citing sources is a practice that I think is sorely lacking in public discourse currently. I appreciate all efforts to quell misinformation and disinformation.
Their reputation and past reporting is supposed to back up things they state as facts (like assuming that reviews they cite are real) for practicality and brevity. Imagine having to document every bit of background research in a presentable way.
They could have included screenshots though.
And the skepticism is healthy. I do personally ‘trust’ Axios (which I read almost daily but regularly double check).
Well, presumably, that’s their job [1]. Being responsible takes effort /s.
References
I don’t agree that citing sources affects that. For example, anecdotally, a citation can just take the form of a footnote in the document.