It's typical now, for better or worse. They have a story and want to publish, now. But have to ask for comment. So they ask for comment, count to 5 and publish with that disclaimer.

And i mean, they are transparent about it.

And almost always update the story when they do receive a comment

That's too late. First impressions matter. Once a narrative is set and biases established, even facts after the fact don't do well to alter what's already in place.

What is the first impression you are thinking of here?

I don’t think there is much of any to worry about.

Transparent about being shit, but what's the value in that?

Like if they would write:

> The above source was never verified, but we swear we talked with a real person

And then call it a day. What kind of journalism is that?

We all know when the story was published and the timing.

It's the regular kind, Seth would say.

They are transparent about it to people in the know. The average person reads this and assumes the target is dodging the interview. Journalists have become activists.

I’m deducing the opposite: journalists have become lazy. Only the activists are putting in the proper legwork these days.

They didn’t respond to the NYT in another article either.

I don’t think they are going to respond.

This has been in the news for multiple days now, they aren’t responding to anyone.

One technique now when asked for comment is to give the story to a friendlier competitor journalist. Then the one asking for comment gets near zero views because their article gets scooped.

Or like Musk, when asked for comment on the horse for hand job scandal, came out as a republican to try and get ahead of it somehow.