Re:Jury finds Rolling Stone responsible for defamation with ...
by ptaipale on Sunday November 06, 2016 @03:27AM
(#12884154)
I don't think "laziness" is a very good explanation here. The story was so obviously fake that the "journalist" in question actually had to do quite a bit of work to compose this story.
Reporting a real, actual case, completely and honestly, wouldn't have been more work.
But it wouldn't have hit so perfectly the narrative that was the selling point.
Reporting a real, actual case, completely and honestly, wouldn't have been more work.
But it wouldn't have hit so perfectly the narrative that was the selling point.