I disagree to a degree. There are feeds with minimal journalism that usually stick close to reporting bare facts. Journalism as opposed to reporting implies at least some level of commentary and surrounding context, both of which can easily be subjective.

In this particular instance the context could have been provided in a better way, but it is context nevertheless.

No, making up motivations is not journalism.

>Megan Rose Dickey is a reporter at TechCrunch focused on diversity, inclusion and social justice.

https://techcrunch.com/author/megan-rose-dickey/

Just bias from the reporter.

I'm so sick and fucking tired of this style of reporting. Whoever is encouraging it or teaching it needs to stop. I've been noticing this tendency to try and link things without evidence in all forms of journalism these days. Report the facts folks.

>Stick to reporting the facts.

Why? The author clearly indicated they were stating an opinion with "something tells me". I read authors because I'm interested in their opinion. If you don't like the style, find your own source. There are many.

TechCrunch is for tech journalism. Opinions have no place in proper journalism. That's what op-eds are for.

Not every news article needs a shitty half baked opinion unless of course you're in the business of manufacturing controversy rather than reporting on it.

> manufacturing controversy

I don't know why you're being downvoted. In the sea of "the media sucks" hand-wringing, you're the only one who zeroed in on the fundamental issue.

(This, please, is not a defense of Uber.)

One of the most important people in one of the most exciting and important positions in one of the most important companies for the future of our society quit at a very interesting time for said company. It's ok if the article is something beyond "he wore a green shirt and ate a bagel".

> One of the most important people

debatable

> in one of the most exciting and important positions

opinion

> in one of the most important companies for the future of our society

opinion, unlikely

> quit at a very interesting time for said company

correlation != causation, aka the point of my comment

> It's ok if the article is something beyond "he wore a green shirt and ate a bagel"

What, is there some word quota? It's also okay to just say "he quit, we do not know why or whether X is related." without implying anything you don't know.

Yeah that's not a good enough reason to assassinate someone's character with zero proof

Yep this. This is no different than saying "I suspect the issues at Nest have to do with rumors of Tony Faddel's noxious leadership."

No one would yell "just report the facts" at that, but because the statement in the article involves women's rights issues, there's a kneejerk reaction from 20-something guys who frequent this forum who think such things never, ever happen in the workplace, especially the 'enlightened' workplaces of SV. I wish this kind of skepticism would take a backseat. Its been well established Uber has some major corporate culture problems. Its not controversial to make such statements if you're remotely familiar with Uber.

Decent writeup here:

https://www.merryjane.com/culture/uber-incidents-that-highli...

edit: -3 and not a single reply... emotional downvotes aren't winning the argument. In fact, they just concede it to me.

What was the original comment? It has been flagkilled.