Who is calling it so? This practice of using "so-called" to manufacture unsubstantiated descriptions of events or people is poor journalism at best. See also a more notable and previously-critiqued use of this langauge: https://www.ft.com/content/ac7389f1-41d8-46b6-bc42-32ac603b7...
> Also, it mentions that the investigation was done by other organizations, but doesn't provide any links.
The New York Times is guilty of the same. Each of the articles mentions that this is a collaboration with other publications, but doesn't link to the other ones. There's not really a single original source.
It's pretty shoddy journalism for the title of the article to assert this as fact even though it's just an allegation that hasn't even been investigated yet.
Based on the article, I think the journalist basically understands the situation (and if they don't, they should investigate further, that's the job). The headline is just intentionally over-dramatic to get clicks. This shouldn't be treated as a good-faith error, more guidance isn't required and wouldn't help.
Where in the hell in that article is there any attempt to get the border agents' side of the story? For all we know, this is entirely fabricated.
While it very well may be true, this is shoddy journalism at its finest. Take this sentence, for example: "Apparently, a trip to the US now allegedly features a frightening round of intense interrogation by American border guards."
> There is no such thing as a "claim of impunity",
Yes, there is; every word in that phrase is used in the usual English sense. The fact that its not a legal term of art doesn't change that those English words accurately describe what occurred.
Yeah, it's pretty disingenuous reporting / [intentional] misunderstanding to sensationalize headlines. I'm sure many dozens of hours of work went into each of these, more likely hundreds. It only impresses people with no familiarity with this type of thing.
this is a _very_ poor article. it has grammatical errors, clunky writing, inconsistent info, and no public sources except a tweet. hopefully this was machine generated, because if people tried to pass this as journalism they should be fired.
the phrase "one of the people" is used 4 times in 5.5 paragraphs.
"The hacking involved multiple incidents."
"The tweet was in part meant to address the hacking, which involved multiple incidents."
these two sentences are back-to-back.
>The hack involved overloading the HHS servers with millions of hits over several hours.
how does this lead to a distribution of fake information? technically, this article does not make sense.
>The attack appears to have been intended to slow the agency’s systems down, but didn’t do so in any meaningful way, said the people, who asked for anonymity to discuss an incident that was not public.
this is also not congruous with the hack leading to the release of false information, and is grammatically incorrect.
Is that not worrying though: a journalist writing an article, whilst ignoring a reputable source?
No it isn't because that's not what happened. As to the page, the page about the incident. I'm starting to think you don't really know much about the details and want to debate this from first principles. That's not going to be very fruitful.
> No culprit has been identified for the Nord Stream attack despite an international investigation
Wrong. The culprit is generally understood to be the US via allies. It is not disputed.
Further, for the Balticconnector, the article assumes that an anchor was dragged. It has not been shown. It seems to be a theory or a fabrication. It is convenient that they accuse a country far away that aren't really bothered much by the accusations by such small countries.
For those that haven't read the OP, this comment is misleading.
The original author, Erik Hoel, is not complaining about the _use_ of press releases, but taking exception to the general lack of attribution and the dishonest way that news outlets incorporate press releases into articles to imply quotations were obtained by reporters.
Who is calling it so? This practice of using "so-called" to manufacture unsubstantiated descriptions of events or people is poor journalism at best. See also a more notable and previously-critiqued use of this langauge: https://www.ft.com/content/ac7389f1-41d8-46b6-bc42-32ac603b7...
reply