I think you’re confusing giving the company a chance to respond with made-up news. The time a news outlet gives for a response is usually proportional to the severity of what they’re announcing.
Giving a company a chance to respond to some hiring numbers when they likely have multiple anonymous sources who have been credible before is a different bar than asking for comment on something that alleges fraud or illegal activity.
If a company doesn't respond to the made up fantasy, that doesn't suddenly make the made up fantasy any more real or proven.
> The time a news outlet gives for a response is usually proportional to the severity of what they’re announcing.
This is an assumption with 0 substantiation. Actually in 2023, I would say the average main stream media outlet does NOT get the benefit of the doubt here.
> likely have multiple anonymous sources who have been credible before
This is an assumption with 0 substantiation. Again.
Why does this media outlet deserve the benefit of the doubt? I just don't get it.
It’s common journalistic practice. That’s one of the benefits of reporting in mainstream media, they have pretty high standards for what gets published.
That doesn’t mean they’re always right or there aren’t bad journalists, but if you spend time listening to most journalists explain their reporting they often explain exactly how they verify their stories, what they went through to get sources, and what they were and weren’t able to report.
Journalism is one of the few ways we have in a democracy to hold power to account. What I don’t get is what a lack of faith in this institution does for us except give those in power even more ways to be unaccountable for what they do.
Giving a company a chance to respond to some hiring numbers when they likely have multiple anonymous sources who have been credible before is a different bar than asking for comment on something that alleges fraud or illegal activity.