There will be a particular focus on your stance around ‘right of reply’ since it affects accuracy so much, and there will also be some discussion around misquoting (as in the recent Honey video) and your inability to address your clear conflicts of interest when it comes to covering an entity that you have chosen to view as a direct competitor, rather than a collaborator or peer, as you did in the past.
Hey Lilith, first this block of text is one entire fucking sentence. Then, you're not good at manipulation so stop trying. Collaborator/peer isn't defined by enabling your retard behaviour.
If you have some comments and evidence on what break-downs caused your inaccurate coverage of us in the past, why you seem to personally find it so challenging to cover us objectively, and what steps you plan to make to rectify these issues in the future, I would be happy to include your thoughts in the segment.
A paragraph shouldn't be just one sentence, Lilith. Canadian education? Not even once. Canadian healthcare? You might want to consider that.
As for the personal side of things, I can’t ask you to like me. You clearly disagree, on a personal, MORAL basis, with some things I do. Which ones are real, and which ones are performative, I’m not sure anymore, but it doesn't really matter. That’s your personal compass, and you gotta follow it.
Fag.
I also expect that if you cover us publicly in the future, you do so with honesty, impartiality, and proper disclosure of your numerous conflicts of interest. With that said, regardless of your motives in ‘23, your actions DID served as a wake-up call for us to supercharge the changes we were slow-rolling
>Guise guise we were slowly going to change anyway, but yeah thank you for bashing us because it made us change quicker
Emotional ex-girlfriend antics. Are you a man?
>DID served [sic]
Linus, DID is an established abbreviation. Disassociative Identity Disorder, you might want to look into it.
From GN:
We also have had a lot we have wanted to be open about, but have struggled to do so because of the perceptions of drama, friendship, and expectations of media protecting “their own.” That's something that I feel having full disclosure and open sharing of facts and opinions would greatly help with.
I mean, yeah?
That's the problem isn't it?
>I am criticising someone I am friendly with and I don't want to seem biased
This is fine but to compensate for the friendship, a lot of people would simply go to the opposite extreme. That's not journalism or neutrality, it's bias in the opposite direction.
Too soft? Well you're friends.
Too hard? It's because of above.
That should have been Linus' central thesis to his BPD letter, but he's too dumb to understand it.