If you're concerned about it, TFA and linked materials go into the potential casual connection. I don't think you can simply dismiss this without a critical examination because all the facts aren't in yet and the story isn't finished. Usually, a whistleblower complaint is really the start of things, not the end.

Hopefully, we'll see over time how much merit this has. It certainly seems worth investigating because we'd all really want to know if/how big donations to prestigious academic institutions can buy their research.

"Following" is also a very common and well-understood English word which means that one thing happened after another, which is probably why journalists use it. Implying a suspected causal relationship by talking about a temporal relationship also happens very frequently in non-journalistic speech. Nobody is trying to trick you with this headline.

I'm not sure what word would be better since "after" carries the same implication.

Either make it clear you are speculating about two events being connected, or get evidence that links them.

Is a whistleblower’s report speculation?

The individual is using the same reasoning as the headline. They weren't getting the fund they wanted and noticed there was a donation recently. They are speculating that that's the cause of their lack of organization support.

"whistleblower" is a journalism word meant to imply who the good guy is and endow them with credibility. Rewriting the story with "employee files complaint" doesn't hit the same.

> They weren't getting the fund they wanted and noticed there was a donation recently. They are speculating that that's the cause of their lack of organization support.

If this is really the evidence you think they're using I'd be willing to bet you didn't read their report: https://live-whistleblower-aid.pantheonsite.io/wp-content/up...

Sure, it's all anecdotal -- it is testimony, after all -- but much of it is backed up by email and text conversations. On the topic of a potential conflict of interest, what do you think about the personal relationship between Doug Elmendorf and Elliot Schrage?

A casual reader may infer the same for both words, but "following" is much stronger. If I may take some liberties with usage: Following someone to a faraway place is much more likely to involve causation than going to that same place after they do.

It could be read that way; but it could be read as a simple temporal sequence, no? In either case, this is a press release from an organization which is advocating for the aggrieved party. I suppose any journalist who wanted to pickup this story would have to decide for themselves whether the language used in the press release goes too far or not when writing their story.

> In sending the lawful whistleblower disclosure to the President and General Counsel of Harvard University, the U.S. Department of Education, and subsequently to the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, Dr. Donovan and Whistleblower Aid are calling for an urgent and impartial investigation into inappropriate influence at the Harvard Kennedy School.

That's literally the point here.

That’s an astute observation. Without having any insight in the matter, statements like “the most important documents in the history of the internet” have me questioning how self-assured this team have been when assessing why Harvard put up a line of defence.

That's a quote from the whistleblower, not something the article itself is asserting.

Are you saying we shouldn't be suspicious of causality, here?

> "Following" is a... word

Yes, you are correct, it's a word.

> journalism... is meant to imply causality without demonstration

That's not true at all.

It's easy to make claims when you are selective about what you read, ignore context, and make up lies.

> Either make it clear you are speculating about two events being connected, or get evidence that links them.

Says the person speculating about the definition of following used in this context.

Would you be persuaded by more examples of headlines using this technique?