undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmacspoofing5y ago0 comments

We're clearly getting one side of the story and missing the broader context. That's normal for journalism these days. That is, ramp up controversy, and omit countervailing factors and wider context.

Let's take a step back and look what this article would have us believe ... namely that in 2021, when race and talk of race is an incredibly sensitive topic (and has been for a couple of decades now but there is certainly extra sensitivity now than before), a tech company in Silicon Valley, based in one of the most progressives areas in the world, would be staffed with people who go around commenting on people's skin color? I need a little bit more journalism to understand the context because at face-value this doesn't pass the 'smell test'.

>They seem to systemically do that to people who make complaints about sexism or racism.

How do you know that? Why would you trust that NBC News is accurately and objectively laying out the case here? What is it in their general reporting, especially on highly contentious and sensitive issues, that tells you they will provide you with the facts and context so you can reach a balanced conclusion?

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

Miner49er5y ago· 1 in thread

Are you just ignoring these two parts of my comment?

> seem to

> Or this article is just cherry picking examples to make it seem that way.

I think I was pretty clear that this is the picture the article paints, but maybe isn't how it actually is.

macspoofingOP5y ago

I did miss that last comment. I apologize. You can interpret my comment as making a general statement about the quality of journalism because I honestly don't think we as readers can come to any conclusions by reading this article.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse