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.