I do think there’s a lot of irony in stuff mentioning how a few word changes here and there can bias the presentation of information; they sure are familiar with that tactic.
It doesn’t seem too ironic for me.
It’s one thing for an author+editor to balance their information sources and put a slant on a story they produce depending on the conclusions they’ve reached through their own judgement. Journalists have to make these choices all the time because some sources are more reliable or robust than others, and they develop a trust relationship with readers depending on how they choose to interpret and present their sources.
It’s another thing entirely for their work to be subverted so that someone changes and puts a different slant on it without their authorisation, but still under their own name.
It doesn’t seem too ironic for me.
It’s one thing for an author+editor to balance their information sources and put a slant on a story they produce depending on the conclusions they’ve reached through their own judgement. Journalists have to make these choices all the time because some sources are more reliable or robust than others, and they develop a trust relationship with readers depending on how they choose to interpret and present their sources.
It’s another thing entirely for their work to be subverted so that someone changes and puts a different slant on it without their authorisation, but still under their own name.