• misk@sopuli.xyzOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s good reporting - innocent until proven guilty and avoids defamation lawsuits in the meantime.

    • not_exactly@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is a good approach in general, but I very much disagree in the case of X. Obvious misinformation is shown right on the front page, and not only since recent attacks on Israel. Elon Musk himself is regularly sharing false information, not to mention the army of blue checks.

      As the saying goes: As a journalist, if one person says it’s raining and another says it’s dry, it’s NOT your job to quote them both. It’s your job to look out the window and see which is the truth.

      So instead of rushing out this “EU said this, X said that” kind of article article, I would expect an organisation like the BBC to find out what’s going on.

      • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        The misinformation part is obvious but EU is investigating whether handling of this misinformation is done correctly and final charges will likely leverage DSA which is untested. In the end it’ll probably be extremely complex legal case and I don’t expect non-specialized reporters to add their own judgment.

        BBC could have titled this article better though.

        • not_exactly@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, that’s an accurate description, and I agree. The DSA is new and therefore untested, so it will certainly be a long legal process.